How God could fail to convey his message?

[Bahman]

This is a question that should come to mind of any religious person: How God could fail to convey his message? There are two scenarios available: 1) God didn’t intended to convey any message and all religions are work of people. This is true since there are many religions around the world. 2) God failed. This is true because there are many religions around the world again.

Your thought.

 

[Aloysium]

People want to create their own version of the truth and don’t want to listen.
Although the church was set up on earth to rectify this, everybody and every religion holds some truth.
The message is to love. This requires more than mere understanding; it demands action.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

This is a question that should come to mind of any religious person: How God could fail to convey his message? There are two scenarios available: 1) God didn’t intended to convey any message and all religions are work of people. This is true since there are many religions around the world. 2) God failed. This is true because there are many religions around the world again.

Your thought.

Alternate possibilities:

1. God has conveyed his message, but we are unaware of it.
2. God has conveyed his message, but we have yet to understand it.
3. God has conveyed his message, but we have misinterpreted it and he does not care to repeat himself.
4. God’s message is infinite and so are its interpretations.
5. God is infinite and so may be multifaceted, allowing that every interpretation of his message may be true.
6. God is not interested in our proper understanding of his message, but more interested in our interpretations.
7. God has purposefully rendered his message incomprehensible.
8. God gave his message to an individual who did not properly convey it to anyone else.
9. God’s message was received and properly understood, but only by a select few
10. God keeps sending his message with the hopes that one day we will properly understand it.
11. God believes he delivered his message, but he forgot to press ‘send.’
12. Mankind’s mailbox is full.

 

[Bahman]

People want to create their own version of the truth and don’t want to listen.

That is correct since God can present himself like he present himself to Adam. Couldn’t him?

Although the church was set up on earth to rectify this, everybody and every religion holds some truth.

Where the church get his authority from? There are many religious institution which make the same claim? How we could be 100% sure?

The message is to love. This requires more than mere understanding; it demands action.

We learn love from our mothers. We don’t need any institutions for that. The main question is what is the truth?

 

[Aloysium]

That is correct since God can present himself like he present himself to Adam. Couldn’t him?

Where the church get his authority from? There are many religious institution which make the same claim? How we could be 100% sure?

We learn love from our mothers. We don’t need any institutions for that. The main question is what is the truth?

1. What makes you think He doesn’t? Your lack of faith disables your capacity to hear.
2. The church derives its authority from God. One does not need to be 100% sure, we just need faith.
3. Youve been on these forums for a very long time and appear to have not understood what is basic to the Christian message. What a waste of everyone’s time. Seriously.

 

[Bahman]

1. What makes you think He doesn’t?

He didn’t because people are confused about truth otherwise he failed. There is no other option.

Your lack of faith disables your capacity to hear.

In fact I practice Christianity for a period but I left it after judging my belief.

1. The church derives its authority from God.

Everybody can make such a claim. In fact there are many religious institutions which make such a claim.

One does not need to be 100% sure, we just need faith.

One needs to be 100% sure otherwise faith is a blind following.

1. Youve been on these forums for a very long time and appear to have not understood what is basic to the Christian message. What a waste of everyone’s time. Seriously.

I know what is the basic Christian message. I am very aware of what I am doing and I don’t think that I am waisting my time for you. How you could be a Christian and feel that you are wasting your time for me? It seems that you didn’t learn the basic message of Christianity.

 

[Bahman]

Alternate possibilities:

1. God has conveyed his message, but we are unaware of it.
2. God has conveyed his message, but we have yet to understand it.
3. God has conveyed his message, but we have misinterpreted it and he does not care to repeat himself.
4. God’s message is infinite and so are its interpretations.
5. God is infinite and so may be multifaceted, allowing that every interpretation of his message may be true.
6. God is not interested in our proper understanding of his message, but more interested in our interpretations.
7. God has purposefully rendered his message incomprehensible.
8. God gave his message to an individual who did not properly convey it to anyone else.
9. God’s message was received and properly understood, but only by a select few
10. God keeps sending his message with the hopes that one day we will properly understand it.
11. God believes he delivered his message, but he forgot to press ‘send.’
12. Mankind’s mailbox is full.

You are kidding. Aren’t you? Otherwise you don’t know the definition of Christian God.

 

[JerryZ]

This is a question that should come to mind of any religious person: How God could fail to convey his message? There are two scenarios available:** 1) God didn’t intended to convey any message and all religions are work of people.** This is true since there are many religions around the world. 2) God failed. This is true because there are many religions around the world again.

Your thought.

1 = Non sequitur (one premise does not follow the other.

2 = Again failed logic why what people do has any impact on God’s will.
People arrive universally to some form of religion, that should point to you that human beings have an innate predisposition to seek the sacred. Which should inform you that perhaps indeed There is a GOD. Otherwise it would mean that the human species is deranged.
But since we can arrive at the conclusion that there is a GOD by using our intellect, that is that. One can take or live it, we have free will after all.

By the way logic is a fundamental tool when one approaches philosophy I would encourage you to study it some more. Since the 2 premises that you presented both fail miserably the logic test.

…

 

[Aloysium]

. . . How you could be a Christian and feel that you are wasting your time for me? . . .

Since you seem to want to engage and I was rather uncharitable, one more time then.
First as to this question; I am a Christian and a sinner.
100% certainty is as attainable as the end of the rainbow.
I am certain that God exists and that He is Love, but what that all entails is a work in progress until I participate in the Beatific Vision in eternity.
Every other truth is trivial, and its pursuit is a waste of time unless it is a stepping stone to being a more loving person.
The Way consumes you totally. It cannot be understood from without; one is to grow in Christ.
Back to the OP - wherein lies the failure?

 

[Bahman]

1 = Non sequitur (one premise does not follow the other).

It is not. In fact we are cognitively open to invent the concept of God since our first invention. It is very trivial: One person invent something, wheel for example, and s/he becomes cognitively open the concept of invention or creation. Then this trivial question comes to her or his mind that who create what we observe that our not our own creation, the answer is what we call God. Voila. Such a big failure. Why? Because we create such a high concept of God afterward forgetting that we are the same in the essence, we are simply both capable of creating.

2 = Again failed logic why what people do has any impact on God’s will.

What is God will? To enlighten some and leave other in darkness and then prise them accordingly!

People arrive universally to some form of religion, that should point to you that human beings have an innate predisposition to seek the sacred.

Yes, people universally arrive to the concept of God because they are cognitively open to the concept of invention and creation. But they forget that they are similar to God. Why we should prise something which is similar to us? What is sacred? There is nothing sacred here.

Which should inform you that perhaps indeed There is a GOD. Otherwise it would mean that the human species is deranged.

In fact I deduce completely deduce opposite: Those people who prise God are deranged since they forget that we are all same in the essence.

But since we can arrive at the conclusion that there is a GOD by using our intellect, that is that. One can take or live it, we have free will after all.

How we could reach that there is a God if we are similar?

By the way logic is a fundamental tool when one approaches philosophy I would encourage you to study it some more. Since the 2 premises that you presented both fail miserably the logic test.

…

I don’t need your corrupted philosophy which make God different from us since you want to conclude what you believe.

 

[Secant]

God did not fail to convey his message. However, he gave humans free will, and he allows the devil to mislead. We have the ability to change his message and create different sets of beliefs because we fail to WANT to understand his message. What is easier, 1) to follow a message that says you have to continually internally and externally grow in holiness and grace with God’s sometimes silent help and repent of your sins, or 2) just to proclaim your devotion once and everything is good? So (this is but one example, but people either accept God’s message, or they find a path that, for them, is easiest to understand) God did not make a mistake, but we humans have taken that message and watered it down.

As for your proof, there is nothing in this world that we can know 100%. Mathematics (one of our most provable fields) is full of axioms, statements that are unprovable without relying on themselves. Physics has two big fields, Newtonian physics and Quantim mechanics. Each of those can be shown very definitively, but they practically disprove each other. You cannot know, 100% that I am a human and not a computer (though I rather hope I pass the Turing test). However, a man’s existence that is one of the most well supported in history (for the age in which he came) was Jesus. He was either God, as he said, lying, or delusional. Given the evidence surrounding his resurrection, delusional men do not have the consistency of thought that he displayed, and that no liar would die for his lies, most of us accept that he is God. He is proven to have started a Church that was to teach the Truth. Only one church can trace its roots (documented to have the same beliefs as the early Christians with what documents are existent and historically shown to follow one direct line) to him and him alone and that is the Catholic Church. The evidence is in favor, and that is all we can ask for on any principle. People believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming, micro/macro-evolution, the health benefits of vaccination, the health benefits of abortion, the cleanliness of manufacture of solar panlels, the need of mankind to commit mass suicide to save the earth, the economic justification of socialism/capitalism, the existence of Hogwarts, and more on less evidence than there is for Jesus and the Catholic Church. (I believe some, not all, of those are valid, but the point is each is believed by some group of people.) Proof is insufficient in every one of these cases to show, 100%, that such a thing is valid. If 100% proof is needed for us not to take something on blind faith, then we take our entire existence on blind faith.

 

[Bahman]

Since you seem to want to engage and I was rather uncharitable, one more time then.

Thank you.

First as to this question; I am a Christian and a sinner.

You were innocent at the time of your birth. That is your society failure to conduct you this way. Proof: I am not a sinner.

100% certainty is as attainable as the end of the rainbow.
I am certain that God exists and that He is Love, but what that all entails is a work in progress until I participate in the Beatific Vision in eternity.

How you could be certain that God exists when you have to wait to reach the end of rainbow? You are contradicting yourself.

Every other truth is trivial, and its pursuit is a waste of time unless it is a stepping stone to being a more loving person.

Well.

The Way consumes you totally. It cannot be understood from without; one is to grow in Christ.

How could you be sure that this is the way when you clearly see people are scattered confused with their own belief. You said that you are not 100% sure. Do you even doubt?

Back to the OP - wherein lies the failure?

People have different believes. That is God failure.

 

[Secant]

If your issue is with the idea of God in general, then there are several things to look at to help you. I believe Tim Staples has an excellent video on it and there is a book sold on Amazon written by twelve PhD’s in physics (unless you are very knowledgable in physics, I recommend you take the specialist opinion and don’t try to follow this very complex set of dissertations, just like you’d probably believe twelve oncologists who agreed you had cancer) that shows God exists. However, the basic logic is two-fold: first, we see that an infinite universe or infinite string of causes is logically flawed (covered in most basic logic courses, but arguments can be found in full by googling “the argument against infinitism”). Thus there is an singular cause to all we have. Between the physics, the order of the universe, and some “Occam’s razor” premises, God has been found to be the least unbelievable argument. Thus, God, who must exist for all to exist, exists and in fact his very nature is that of existence. The second look is that we know right from wrong even as a small child (in a basic sense) and we can see what is good. Evil is a lack of good, just as cold is a lack of heat and light is a lack of dark, so good must bewhere we see the ordering, just as we order levels of heat with temperature. We can also see comparisons of good. IE: Apple pie is good, my mother is better because she makes the pie. As good continues, it must reach an ultimate good (see argument against infinitism). A good that exists is better than a good that doesn’t thus there must be an ultimate good. That ultimate good who, from our previous argument exists by his nature not due to some cause, is God. Creation is but one facet of God, one he allows us to share in. He is the pinnacle of good and exists because he cannot not exist. Those are provable (and if you dislike my brief summation of the arguments, they are easy to find from reputable source on Google), at least to the extent (see my previous post) that anything is provable.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . You said that you are not 100% sure. Do you even doubt? People have different believes. . .

I know that God exists and that He is love in the same manner that I know of my own existence. My being is a manifestation of His infinite compassion.
I am sure I could confuse myself with doubt. It is like casting a veil over what can be seen. Why would I do that? Better to grow, embracing the conflicts to reveal the greater whole.
People have different beliefs because they have different intellectual abilities, different education, societal backgrounds, life experiences and different graces bestowed upon them by the Holy Spirit. All I know is that if everything in one’s life is a prayer and meditation, if one attends mass and partakes of the Eucharist, if one contemplates sacred writings, and especially if one seeks to be a more loving person, it becomes clearer and clearer.

 

[Bahman]

God did not fail to convey his message. However, he gave humans free will, and he allows the devil to mislead. We have the ability to change his message and create different sets of beliefs because we fail to WANT to understand his message. What is easier, 1) to follow a message that says you have to continually internally and externally grow in holiness and grace with God’s sometimes silent help and repent of your sins, or 2) just to proclaim your devotion once and everything is good? So (this is but one example, but people either accept God’s message, or they find a path that, for them, is easiest to understand) God did not make a mistake, but we humans have taken that message and watered it down.

As for your proof, there is nothing in this world that we can know 100%. Mathematics (one of our most provable fields) is full of axioms, statements that are unprovable without relying on themselves. Physics has two big fields, Newtonian physics and Quantim mechanics. Each of those can be shown very definitively, but they practically disprove each other. You cannot know, 100% that I am a human and not a computer (though I rather hope I pass the Turing test). However, a man’s existence that is one of the most well supported in history (for the age in which he came) was Jesus. He was either God, as he said, lying, or delusional. Given the evidence surrounding his resurrection, delusional men do not have the consistency of thought that he displayed, and that no liar would die for his lies, most of us accept that he is God. He is proven to have started a Church that was to teach the Truth. Only one church can trace its roots (documented to have the same beliefs as the early Christians with what documents are existent and historically shown to follow one direct line) to him and him alone and that is the Catholic Church. The evidence is in favor, and that is all we can ask for on any principle. People believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming, micro/macro-evolution, the health benefits of vaccination, the health benefits of abortion, the cleanliness of manufacture of solar panlels, the need of mankind to commit mass suicide to save the earth, the economic justification of socialism/capitalism, the existence of Hogwarts, and more on less evidence than there is for Jesus and the Catholic Church. (I believe some, not all, of those are valid, but the point is each is believed by some group of people.) Proof is insufficient in every one of these cases to show, 100%, that such a thing is valid. If 100% proof is needed for us not to take something on blind faith, then we take our entire existence on blind faith.

You apparently didn’t pay attention to my argument. It is very simple: There are many religions and there is one God hence he either didn’t convey any message and all religions are human made or he failed to convey his message. There is no another option.

 

[Bahman]

If your issue is with the idea of God in general, then there are several things to look at to help you. I believe Tim Staples has an excellent video on it and there is a book sold on Amazon written by twelve PhD’s in physics (unless you are very knowledgable in physics, I recommend you take the specialist opinion and don’t try to follow this very complex set of dissertations, just like you’d probably believe twelve oncologists who agreed you had cancer) that shows God exists. However, the basic logic is two-fold: first, we see that an infinite universe or infinite string of causes is logically flawed (covered in most basic logic courses, but arguments can be found in full by googling “the argument against infinitism”). Thus there is an singular cause to all we have. Between the physics, the order of the universe, and some “Occam’s razor” premises, God has been found to be the least unbelievable argument. Thus, God, who must exist for all to exist, exists and in fact his very nature is that of existence. The second look is that we know right from wrong even as a small child (in a basic sense) and we can see what is good. Evil is a lack of good, just as cold is a lack of heat and light is a lack of dark, so good must bewhere we see the ordering, just as we order levels of heat with temperature. We can also see comparisons of good. IE: Apple pie is good, my mother is better because she makes the pie. As good continues, it must reach an ultimate good (see argument against infinitism). A good that exists is better than a good that doesn’t thus there must be an ultimate good. That ultimate good who, from our previous argument exists by his nature not due to some cause, is God. Creation is but one facet of God, one he allows us to share in. He is the pinnacle of good and exists because he cannot not exist. Those are provable (and if you dislike my brief summation of the arguments, they are easy to find from reputable source on Google), at least to the extent (see my previous post) that anything is provable.

The main issue of this thread is that how there are many religion if there is one God?

 

[Bahman]

I know that God exists and that He is love in the same manner that I know of my own existence. My being is a manifestation of His infinite compassion.
I am sure I could confuse myself with doubt. It is like casting a veil over what can be seen. Why would I do that? Better to grow, embracing the conflicts to reveal the greater whole.
People have different beliefs because they have different intellectual abilities, different education, societal backgrounds, life experiences and different graces bestowed upon them by the Holy Spirit. All I know is that if everything in one’s life is a prayer and meditation, if one attends mass and partakes of the Eucharist, if one contemplates sacred writings, and especially if one seeks to be a more loving person, it becomes clearer and clearer.

Look my friend. Non of what you said is related to subject of this thread. Just answer this question that why there are many religions when there is one God? Did he failed or never ever send any message?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Just answer this question that why there are many religions when there is one God? Did he failed or never ever send any message?

I thought I did.

People have different beliefs because they have different intellectual abilities, different education, societal backgrounds, life experiences and different graces bestowed upon them by the Holy Spirit.

From the CCC:

I. The life of man - to know and love God

1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Saviour. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

2 So that this call should resound throughout the world, Christ sent forth the apostles he had chosen, commissioning them to proclaim the gospel: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."4 Strengthened by this mission, the apostles "went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it."5

3 Those who with God’s help have welcomed Christ’s call and freely responded to it are urged on by love of Christ to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world. This treasure, received from the apostles, has been faithfully guarded by their successors. All Christ’s faithful are called to hand it on from generation to generation, by professing the faith, by living it in fraternal sharing, and by celebrating it in liturgy and prayer.6

I am assuming that you are listening for your own answer, rather than God’s, and that is why you do not hear the truth.

There is a war going on between the truth and the forces of sin and ignorance. We chose the lies of Satan promising us to be gods, without God. This is the consequence.

 

[esmero]

:yawn: Just because some people can’t see it doesn’t mean there aren’t things to be seen.

 

[davidv]

Why does the sole responsibility for reception of the message placed on the sender?

What role is required of the receiver?