He has already answered this to me, here is the answer: It happens all the time throughout time. Over and over people are moved to His Kingdom on a personal level. The cycle of the harvest of the earth is ongoing.
When you meet Jesus you know that He was before time itself, really I have no interest in asking Him this, so I would suggest you do so.
My request still stands 
Choices, choices…
To be honest, you should state:“I believe He has already answered Me”! It is your belief only,not fact, so it is not an argument towards truth. Since you have no interest in asking Him anything , could it be that your mind has not yet sought an answer? Your beliefs are your right; but that doesn’t make them right! One can’t meet a man who is not yet proven 100 & to have exised and no proof that He exists except by some one’s faith! There is too much contradiction about the man of whom you say you have met. And like the Preacher who years ago claimed to see a 50 foot Jesus it isn’t necassarily any more belivable than my great granddaughter’s imaginary friend!
The things you state you saw do not seem likely that a kind and loving being would create or allow to exist. he comes across as a very terrible and unloving being.
There is fact and there is truth, they are not the same, and often opposite each other. Truth’s only source is from God, facts are what man can find out on his own so facts can not find truth.
If you want to find God seek Him and He will reveal Himself to you, it doesn’t work any other way because God wants you to know Him personally, with no priest, no mentor, no media outlet, no government, no scientist getting in the way.
These other beings are also God’s Loved children finding their own way, and some try evil ways, like people do (demons are just older souls - with more power, but still God’s children, eventually they will find out that they want the way of Love and abandon their ways. it is free will, which is very like the saying if you love someone let them go and if they love you they will return to you.
God wants us to want to Love Him and will not force it.
To be honest, that sounds awfully nitpicky, and I can’t imagine it would be required or requested in any other topic. I get that you’re not a believer, but…really? So if I say, “I met Barack Obama, and he answered that question,” it’s not understood that it’s my belief that I met Barack Obama?
I mean, it could be true or not true, but when you’re talking about what someone told you, “I believe” isn’t required for clarity.
Typo, but after I realized it I figured the intelligent group here would realize what I meant to write.
I believe no evidence would convince someone their faith is wrong. Same thing with true, staunch atheists.
That is because faith is not based on empirical evidence. If science and facts were taken into consideration no right minded person would be religious. I mean sweet Jesus, we all know Zeus, Mars, Isis, and every other god in history has been superstitious mumbo jumbo but they REFUSE to consider just one more god as fake?
In that same way, atheists will never be dissuaded of no God because they will believe, in time, science will explain what’ll happen.
For the record, I’m an agnostic. I don’t know that there is a god but I’m pretty sure there isn’t. Honestly, you all spend so much time thinking and worrying about something you can’t control. You build churches, write books, waste energy and resources. If there is a hell, you’re all going. (but thankfully there probably isn’t one :P)
What’s a staunch atheist and why do you believe no evidence can change our minds?
No faith is needed to be an atheist.
Nonsense. Not all atheists believe humans will explain all.
If you’re without belief in the existence in gods (which it looks like you are), you’re also an atheist.
God would have to tell me I was wrong.
Of course He does that now. Just not on the subject of my faith in Him.
Tris
My dear, dear monavis. While your questions are profound and thought-provoking, they are by no means unique to a theistic cosmogony. Naturalistic cosmogonies suffer from the same basic limitations—was the Universe always here, in some form (steady-state or oscillating) or did it spring into existence from nothing (Big Bang, e.g.) The frontiers of science have made tremendous strides in answering these questions, but the matter is far from settled. To say that existence of a Universe must precede the existence of a God falls into the very trap I was attempting to outline in my earlier post (#10). A Creator may very well, and usually must, exist outside of and independently of His creation. Most people who hold a theistic view of creation (mostly the Abrahamic faiths, but many others, too) presuppose that God is Eternal, that is, He was not, Himself, created, and at the end of the natural world, as the Universe comes to whatever end awaits it, He will continue to exist. There is a natural counterpart to this view, which does not invoke a supernatural being, wherein it’s turtles all the way down.
Many times, when the subject of “God” comes up, the default reply of the majority is little different from parodying Him as “God-man! The Superhero with omnipotent powers!” Of course, the reality is vastly different from this, but we need to move to a place where we may hold a rational debate on the subject. Some people “believe” in God, some choose not to. By definition, the question is not amenable to logical proof. As I mentioned earlier, for Free Will to have any meaning, the consequences of our actions must be allowed to unfold as they will. For God to step in and “fix” every problem would nullify the whole cosmic purpose He seems to have set in motion. If it were possible to “prove” either the existence, or non-existence of God, faith would be meaningless, and free will a lie.
As to the writers whose works are found in the Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, the presumption is that, if a being as all-powerful as God could create the Universe, and everything in it, from superclusters of Galaxies to the most basic sub-atomic particles, He would surely have the capability to safeguard the guidelines by which He has chosen to make His will known to us. There are truths to be found in the holy writings, but they may be pushed beyond their purview when, as some have attempted, they are used to argue points of physics.
[quote=“kanicbird, post:64, topic:566936”]
There is fact and there is truth, they are not the same, and often opposite each other. Truth’s only source is from God, facts are what man can find out on his own so facts can not find truth.
If you want to find God seek Him and He will reveal Himself to you, it doesn’t work any other way because God wants you to know Him personally, with no priest, no mentor, no media outlet, no government, no scientist getting in the way.
These other beings are also God’s Loved children finding their own way, and some try evil ways, like people do (demons are just older souls - with more power, but still God’s children, eventually they will find out that they want the way of Love and abandon their ways. it is free will, which is very like the saying if you love someone let them go and if they love you they will return to you.
God wants us to want to Love Him and will not force it.[/QUOTE
Truth and fact is the same thing.A fact has to be true or it isn’t fact!
A good father doesn’t have to have his children’s love. It is more important that he love his children, and a Being who created children who he knew ahead of time would not love him, that would be the fault of the father, not the child. As an example: Were I Hitler’s mother and knew ahead of time that my child would be evil I would not conceive him. God is supposed to know all things and if this same God created a monster like Satan and allows him to destroy His children He is not a kind loving father, but a sadist and an egotist.
And you know this because some person told you it was so? Since God is a being as you seem to portray Him, then He would first need a place in which to exixst, who created the place for him or was he also place? There is nothing that was or is written , taught or thought that is not from a human sorce, so one’s belief is in in a human not God! God didn’t say,write or inspire any writings because some person thousands of years ago said he did! That is why religions are based on the belief of some other human.
Free will is just that. If My child asks me if he can go to the movies and I say it is your free will to go, I don’t want you to go, so if you use your free will I will kill you, is not really free will!!
I should have added I didn’t say the Universe, I said “Existence” a big difference!! The universe and God must also be in existence or not exist!
This seems to be a real sticking point for you, and you seem to believe it is a crushing argument against any and all theistic religions. God may be a “being”, and yet does not inhabit the existence we ourselves share. To say “He would first need a place in which to exixst (sic)…” makes no sense in any interpretation I can think of. You neglected to say how the natural (i.e. non-theological) Universe came into being. Is it eternal and self-sufficient or episodic? In any case, how did the material which makes up the vast cosmos come into being? To me, the answers to these questions hinge as much on “faith” as any belief in a higher power.
As purely a thought experiment, with absolutely no basis in science or any formal religion, suppose there were a plane of existence of which we have no knowledge, whatsoever. Not a “parallel universe” or “other dimension”, but a totally unknown, and unknowable, existence utterly unlike anything of which we can conceive. Not even what some may term “the spirit world.” Suppose, further, that a “being” inhabited this existence, and had the desire and the resources to create what we perceive as “The Universe”. In what manner this may have been brought about is irrelevant to this discussion. We, from within the confines of our Universe, can only detect “existence” in terms of the constraints of the Universe. There is absolutely no way we could make any valid statement concerning the existence or non-existence of this hypothetical being, or the “place” this being inhabits. Nor would the “being” have any need to be within our Universe.
The point I am trying to make is, there is absolutely no way to prove or disprove the “existence” of any supernatural “being”. There is no point of contact in our sphere of existence with which to test, compare, analyze or study.
I used staunch because that is what I meant. A person who isn’t sure about God’s existence is typically described as agnostic. I believe no evidence would change atheists the same way that “visions of white” or “miracles” don’t change their mind. In the opinion of this almost atheist, given ENOUGH time, humans will be able to explain everything. And I mean EVERYTHING. That’ll be thousands, millions, or billions of years away but eventually it’ll happen. I’m not saying an atheist would be able to instantly explain any piece of “evidence” brought before them but any person who sees a piece of “evidence” before them and doesn’t think “well, I can’t explain it yet but eventually humans will definitely be able to explain it” isn’t an atheist. That person can’t be. If they believe that something is unexplainable by man (even given an infinite amount of time) then they concede to unobtainable knowledge. There must be powers outside our understanding or explanation for these things to exist and presto: you’ve got the possibility of God. Therefore, they are not atheist. They are agnostic.
Knowing there is a god and knowing there isn’t a god are both unanswerable questions and both require faith in that assumption. That is not to say they are equal though; they are most certainly not. There is LIKELY no god. But to say definitively there is no god requires faith because you can’t prove there is no god. It’s very unlikely there is a god but you can’t prove it .
So, I am not an atheist. I am agnostic. I have no faith. It is the only thing in the world that requires no faith. It basically says, I’m not playing.
(Color emphasis added to quote.)
I’ve made a point of not responding every time someone casually tosses off an “Og” but I can’t pass up name-dropping like this. I (or should I say “we”) may have to start charging a tri-royalty! 
- Me
You’re using agnosticism in a way that is mutually exclusive from atheism. How are you an “almost atheist”? If you have a belief in the existence of gods, you’re a theist. If you’re without belief, you’re an atheist. Which is it?
You may believe that humans will be able to explain everything in the future, but you not only claimed all atheists believe this, you claimed it’s the reason they could never be convinced gods exist. You’re wrong on both counts.
I don’t even know where to begin. I guess the following is a good start:
An atheist can believe there is the possibility that gods exist. All it takes to be an atheist is to be without belief in the existence of gods. Atheism and agnosticism aren’t either/or positions.
What can you say definitively?
I’m an atheist and I also have no faith. You know about the claims of gods; you can’t claim you’re not playing. You’re either with belief or without it.
You said, “A person who isn’t sure about God’s existence is typically described as agnostic.” That doesn’t tell me you’re not playing. One can not be sure God exists yet still believe He does. Not all theists are sure they’re right.
Good question, because I don’t think I was very clear on my point there. For this, I liken our, Humanity’s, relationship with God to that of a child to his parent or perhaps a student to a teacher, except the main difference being that we are able to observe the child or the student, humanity, but are unable to directly observe the parent or the teacher, God. Now, to further this analogy, let us say you are able to observe this child or student long term and see the faults and growths that they make. As such, I believe that one can make some judgments about the nature of the tutelage that they are receiving based upon how their behavior changes over time, and thus, about the nature of the parent or teacher himself.
Now, of course, this sort of observeration isn’t an exact science, because a lesson may be heavily emphasized but also heavily resisted or, similarly, lightly emphasized but easily learned, but that’s more a matter of nuance in prioritization of principles rather than the existence or not existence of them.
Anyway, applying this principle, I like to observe history and see if I can understand what lessons we’ve learned, what lessons we’ve seen emphasized heavily, and general trends of the direciton we’re heading, and I think these are consistent with my understanding of the nature of God. However, if I were to begin to notice a trend in the behaviors of people that contradicted my understanding then, similarly, under this principle, it would potentially fundamentally affect my faith as well.
Yes and no. To address the no first, I don’t really believe in heaven in the way that most Christians do, mostly in that I don’t see our individuality as we understand it having the same meaning in that context. I’m unsure exactly what that entails, as it isn’t something I’ve given a whole lot of thought to yet, with other higher priorities, but I think it might help you understand my response to the other part of the question.
The yes is that the existence of options and the ability to choose between them is what constitutes free will, but that we objectively know the optimal choice and thus maintain to choose that one is not a violation of free will.
Let me try an analogy. Imagine you’re playing a game of tic-tac-toe. If one knows nothing about the game and choices of moves are essentially random, sometimes one will make good choices that might lead to a win or tie, and sometimes one might make poor choices that lead to a loss. I’d equate this utter lack of knowledge of the game to much how we experience free will in every day experience. As you get more experience playing, you start to notice patterns and can more often avoid moves that lead to losses. This is the process of us learning and understanding the moral and ethical rules that should help us understand what choices we should and shouldn’t make. Eventually, because tic-tac-toe has a small number of states, one can objectively know exactly what move to make in any given state to guarantee one will not lose. One is still able to make poor choices, but being able to see and understand totality of the consequences, one will not want to choose anything but the optimal move. This is how I see the ideal sense of free-will.
Thus, that one chooses not to make sub-optimal choices does not undermine the ability to do so and, as such, free-will can, and in my belief does, exist in heaven in as much as it does on Earth.
Existence is just that…what ever is. a being needs a place to exist, thenyou are saying. God is Not a being, Yet religions say he is a supreme being! Before anything or being can exist there has to be existence, if something or some one is not in existence then they do not exist!!
Your argument for how the natural world came in to being, is that it was created by a supreme being, yet you cannot say how that supreme being came to be,so your argument has no more basis then mine, except yours is a belief in what some other human taught you! It all boils down to the fact that, it is quite possible that the idea of a creator God was an idea of a human being’s thought and passed down through the ages. Yet you also state that God may not be a being, yet if the OT writer was correct this same God was able to show Moses His back side! He supposidily walk in the garden with Adam and Eve so I would say that implied he was in our existence and was thought of as a being. The rabbi on the history channel said that the Jewish God was different because he represented the things not seen or known.