Is God a good teacher?

[Tyrion]

What you did in your original post, and here as well, was present something that we as Catholics don’t believe and then critique it. So what? We don’t believe it.

I wish to thank you for your effort to answer, but unfortunately you are way off. Let me explain why.

Once we reach the age of reason, God the teacher hands us a test with a single question on it.

Not even allegorically true, and definitely not true actually. God never speaks to anyone. Those who assert otherwise are most likely delusional.

*1. I give you a choice between two mutually exclusive options. Option number one is that you may freely choose to place the needs of all others, with absolutely no exceptions, ahead of your own personal desires, for all of eternity. Option number two is that you may freely choose to place your own personal desires ahead of the needs of all others, with absolutely no exceptions, for all of eternity. *
Even if these requirements were actually spelled out on that nonexistent paper, they would be 1) impossible, 2) nonsensical and 3) directly against the catholic teaching.

1. Impossible, because no one can do either one every time. Sometimes we must consider our desires first, and sometimes we consider the desires of others. Always? Ridiculous.
2. Nonsensical. I can never be as well-informed about the needs and desires of others as they are, so on what grounds should I interfere with their life? Also the scenario is crazy. Suppose that there are only 2 people, you and I. I am required (by your scenario) to put your well-being in front of mine… and you are required to put my well-being in front of yours. This is called a lose-lose situation.
3. What you say is that we attain “our score” (salvation) by works - and that is against the catholic teaching.

Alindawyl;10965187:

God tells us in advance that option number one is the correct answer. He does this through not only Divine Revelation but also by writing it on our hearts and therefore making it a part of our nature.

Oh, please! Not again. There is no “revelation” which could be recognized as such. And our “heart” is only pumping blood. There is no secret “scribbling” on it.

Because he is perfectly fair, he ensures that each and every one of us over the course of our lives are given everything that is necessary to enable us to choose option one. He has built a feedback mechanism into each of us called the conscience, to let us know when we’re considering the wrong answer.

The conscience you speak of is simply a value system instilled in us during our upbringing. My value system is drastically different from yours. My conscience does not “warn” me that out-of-wedlock sex is “evil” or “sinful”, and the same applies to the vast majority of the humans ever lived.

Since we are free to give either answer, we are also free to ignore our conscience. There are also natural negative consequences built into reality for living out option two. Depending on the manner in which we live it out, however, those natural negative consequences are sometimes not immediately evident.

Here you made a serious error. A good teacher does not “postpone” the negative feedback. Never!

God doesn’t even need to score the test because we already know the correct answer. We will check it if we picked option one or mark it with an X if we picked option two, turn it in, and then willingly go on to what awaits us either way.

You gotta be kidding. People “voluntarily” choosing eternal damnation, eternal torture? I have seen this “argument” many times, but unfortunately the forum rules prevent me from answering properly, because the words needed would be “uncharitable”. So I will leave it to your imagination.

Moreover, that imaginary “paper” would have zillions of “do’s” and “don’t’s” if it existed. What your post amounted to is a very naïve over-simplification. Different schools of Christians would assert different rules for us to follow - and they cannot even agree among themselves. There is no “excuse” for God’s aloof hiding behind the clouds. There is absolutely no visible sign that God cares about our fate, either here or in the hereafter.

As a parting remark, I also appreciate your words about praying for me. Very kind of you. If you wish to react to this post, I would beg you to limit your reply to something that I can see and relate to. No imaginary “papers”. Tell me about the visible signs about God’s “love” and “caring” for us. But please do not waste your time (or mine) by referring to the bible, or the catechism or the magisterium… as the old movie (Sgt. Joe Friday in Dragnet) says: “Just the facts, ma’am.”

 

[Alindawyl]

As a parting remark, I also appreciate your words about praying for me. Very kind of you. If you wish to react to this post, I would beg you to limit your reply to something that I can see and relate to. No imaginary “papers”. Tell me about the visible signs about God’s “love” and “caring” for us. But please do not waste your time (or mine) by referring to the bible, or the catechism or the magisterium… as the old movie (Sgt. Joe Friday in Dragnet) says: “Just the facts, ma’am.”

To limit my reply to something you can see and relate to, all I can offer is this poor analogy.

You are basically arguing that a statement in a mathematical proof (the statement being analogous to something like God’s revelation, the role of the conscience, the Christian understanding of love, etc) is false, but are arguing the merits of that statement under the assumption that one of the givens (God exists) is false. The person you are arguing with, however, accepts the given and therefore will continue to accept the statement as long as they accept the given.

I know it seems clear as day to you that the statement must be false because the given is false, but it seems clear as day to us that the statement must be true because the given is true. No matter what argument you present against the statement, our response will be something along the lines of “But the statement makes perfect sense given our faith in Christ and his Church.” The object of our faith as Catholic Christians is the person of Jesus Christ. The only way you’re going to convince any of us is to convince us that Jesus Christ is not a divine person. If he’s just a man, if the resurrection did not happen, our faith is in vain.

The problem you will face is that the Bible already tells us this. We’ve known since day one that, as Saint Paul says in 1 Corinthians, we are the most pitiable of people if what we believe is false. We know that fact, and still we believe. Maybe we’re all just a bunch of deluded fools. Or maybe there’s something to our faith. I’m just a fallible human being and can’t convince you of the truth; only God can do that. Provided you let him. If you won’t listen to him, why in the world would you listen to someone like me?

But I will love you, and pray for you, regardless. It’s all I can do.

 

[MPat]

I know that most believers like to speak of God using superlatives, so I wonder if they realize that God - as a teacher - fails the “test”.

Good teachers give immediate feedback to their students. The feedback mechanism tells the students if they are right of wrong and what was their error (if any). Only an incredibly bad teacher would give out test papers, score them secretly without telling the students how they fared, and only at the end of the school year provide a summary evaluation, when there is no more opportunity to learn.

So those people who argue that the problems and the misfortunes happen to us because God wants us to grow, and become better obviously never thought their “arguments” through.

Any disagreement?

Actually… After reading this I get the impression that you ended up arguing in favour of the statement “God does not act like a good dog trainer.”. For it is true that dog trainers (and the like) do their best to give feedback immediately.

But, well, humans do not happen to be very good at being dogs… And I am not sure that good teachers of humans must instantly say if the answer is right or wrong. On the contrary, I would say that it is much more correct to lead the student (using the questions or with some other means) into conditions where (eventually) he would end up in “trouble” (for example, run into a contradiction) and thus would see that his answer was wrong. And that seems to be what God is trying to do too…

 

[polytropos]

Actually… After reading this I get the impression that you ended up arguing in favour of the statement “God does not act like a good dog trainer.”. For it is true that dog trainers (and the like) do their best to give feedback immediately.

This is a fair objection, I think. There is no “Skinnerian God” who trains us by operant conditioning. I think our God is emphatically not a God who hopes that we learn by positive reinforcement. If we only act good because God is on the loudspeaker or because God sends us cease-and-desist orders through the mail (or because we know God will give us a biscuit), then we aren’t truly acting good, out of love for God and for others.

Tyrion rejects a God who does not verbalize to us, in the present, which of our actions are good and which are bad. But what he has not demonstrated is that God must teach this way or that, if God were to teach this way, it would produce the sort of believers that God desires.

Now, certainly, he reveals some limitations of thinking of God as a teacher, but there are limitations to thinking of God with any analogy. I find it hard to discredit the voice of my conscience or the grace I receive from making a confession.

 

[fhansen]

I know that most believers like to speak of God using superlatives, so I wonder if they realize that God - as a teacher - fails the “test”.

Good teachers give immediate feedback to their students. The feedback mechanism tells the students if they are right of wrong and what was their error (if any). Only an incredibly bad teacher would give out test papers, score them secretly without telling the students how they fared, and only at the end of the school year provide a summary evaluation, when there is no more opportunity to learn.

So those people who argue that the problems and the misfortunes happen to us because God wants us to grow, and become better obviously never thought their “arguments” through.

Any disagreement?

We already know right from wrong, and we play God in this life. Will we follow the truth, or will we prefer to create or follow a morality that promises to fulfill various desires for glory, wealth/possessions, and pleasure? The lessons that can teach us to value that which is truly good are provided by this life, itself-they’re all around us. We just need to finally decide.

 

[Tyrion]

Actually… After reading this I get the impression that you ended up arguing in favour of the statement “God does not act like a good dog trainer.”. For it is true that dog trainers (and the like) do their best to give feedback immediately.

But, well, humans do not happen to be very good at being dogs… And I am not sure that good teachers of humans must instantly say if the answer is right or wrong. On the contrary, I would say that it is much more correct to lead the student (using the questions or with some other means) into conditions where (eventually) he would end up in “trouble” (for example, run into a contradiction) and thus would see that his answer was wrong. And that seems to be what God is trying to do too…

Very good analysis! But think about it a little further. At the beginning of our learning process the small children are “trained” exactly as the dogs are trained. Immediate feedback, immediate reward or punishment. Since dogs will never grow up, there will be no “teaching”, it will always be “training”.

Supposedly we, humans reach a level, when training can be replaced by teaching. No “on the spot”, immediate feedback is given - BUT the feedback IS given maybe a week later when the papers are graded, when there is still room for learning from one’s mistakes and errors. Not when the “game over” sign flashes on the screen, and no more “free, new life” is given to the player. And this is manifestly missing. It is a “one strike and you are out” type of game, even if the game consists of many parts. But several of those parts can lead to fatal mistakes (what you would call unrepented mortal sins).

Naturally, the analogy is not 100% correct. No analogy ever can be that precise. But we can refine it. The teacher might be teaching the student how to fly an airplane, or drive a car. In the theoretical phase, in the classroom it is fine to postpone the feedback a week or so… but not when the hands-on part of the training starts. (And it is precise to speak of training here, not just teaching). The trainer lets the student to take control, allows the student to make minor, not fatal mistakes, but as soon as the student embarks on a fatal course (either to himself or to others), the trainer (if he is a good trainer) will override the student “free will” preventing the fatal outcome (the trainer might be performing his duties remotely, so his own existence is not threatened by the student’s mistake). No amount of appeal to “free will” can justify the negligence of the “teacher” who does not interfere when the outcome would be fatal.

Now, even if I would take your reply strictly as written, then God would not be good dog-trainer, and as such he would lack “perfection” in that respect.

 

[Tyrion]

We already know right from wrong, and we play God in this life.

Only to a certain, very limited extent. We do not have a “hard-wired”, inborn value system (no matter how many times that nauseating “scribbled onto our heart” nonsense is repeated). Our value-system, or conscience is being formed by our experiences and our upbringing.

Will we follow the truth, or will we prefer to create or follow a morality that promises to fulfill various desires for glory, wealth/possessions, and pleasure?

There is no such thing as “THE truth”, there are zillions of true statements. And there is nothing wrong with pursuing glory, wealth, possessions and pleasure - AS LONG AS we do not trample on others in our endeavor to reach those goals.

The lessons that can teach us to value that which is truly good are provided by this life, itself-they’re all around us. We just need to finally decide.

This may be correct, but much too generic to be useful.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I know that most believers like to speak of God using superlatives, so I wonder if they realize that God - as a teacher - fails the “test”.

Good teachers give immediate feedback to their students. The feedback mechanism tells the students if they are right of wrong and what was their error (if any). Only an incredibly bad teacher would give out test papers, score them secretly without telling the students how they fared, and only at the end of the school year provide a summary evaluation, when there is no more opportunity to learn.

So those people who argue that the problems and the misfortunes happen to us because God wants us to grow, and become better obviously never thought their “arguments” through.

Any disagreement?

Actually, I completely agree with you, Tyrion. That’s why we have all sorts of means of immediate - or relatively immediate - feedback, like the Church, Scripture, a well-formed conscience, the movement of the Spirit in our lives, etc.

I don’t think problems and misfortunes happen to us because “God wants us to grow”. Rather, God has given us and our world freedom. Terrible things will happen and sometimes they will help us to grow. In fact, I doubt anyone who has not gone through some serious suffering or pain actually has that much wisdom to offer.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

jonathan - Yes, God imparts something far superior to mere knowledge, if we are open to it He gives us WISDOM.

Knowledge by itself is just a tool, and tools as we know can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

WISDOM gives us the ability to use knowledge WISELY and SAFELY - for the good of ourselves and others.

 

[Aloysium]

God is a great teacher, providing even on these forums examples of what happens: the muddles we get into when we go our own way, when we follow the teachings of the secular world.

Coming on these forums and disagreeing with the options of the vast majority shows a certain degree of fortitude. Hopefully, the process, beginning with piety, will favour a growth in all the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Tyrion]

Actually, I completely agree with you, Tyrion. That’s why we have all sorts of means of immediate - or relatively immediate - feedback, like the Church, Scripture, a well-formed conscience, the movement of the Spirit in our lives, etc.

None of those qualify as reliable, correct feedback. The catholic church is not accepted by the non-religious, the non-christian, the non-catholic and even a very sizable portion of the catholic population. The bible is not accepted by the non-religious and the non-christian population, and even the christians cannot agree how to interpret it - so as a reliable feedback it is useless. I suspect that your definition of a well-formed conscience is the one which is total agreement with the teachings of the church. People’s conscience (in general) is formed during their formative years, and they learn what has been repeatedly told to them. I child growing up in a white-supremacist family (who are devout christians!) will accept the discrimination against blacks and Jews, and have no “pangs” of conscience against it. I have no idea what the “movement of the spirit” might be, so I cannot comment on it.

So, there is no universal feedback mechanism, which would help us - unambiguously - in our dilemmas.

Now, maybe you might argue that the church (as the sole interpreter of the bible) is the one and only real authority, and those who disagree are in error, and it is not the church’s fault that its role (as a feedback) is disputed. This kind of argument could only be accepted if God would come and endorse the church as the only valid “voice” which speaks for God. Of course I am aware that the church “claims” exactly that, but such “self-authenticating” claims are dime a dozen.

I don’t think problems and misfortunes happen to us because “God wants us to grow”. Rather, God has given us and our world freedom. Terrible things will happen and sometimes they will help us to grow. In fact, I doubt anyone who has not gone through some serious suffering or pain actually has that much wisdom to offer.

I have seen this too, many of times. Again, a good parent or a good teacher only allows enough freedom to make those mistakes one can learn from. To give the freedom to make fatal mistakes is ridiculous.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

This is a fair objection, I think. There is no “Skinnerian God” who trains us by operant conditioning. I think our God is emphatically not a God who hopes that we learn by positive reinforcement. If we only act good because God is on the loudspeaker or because God sends us cease-and-desist orders through the mail (or because we know God will give us a biscuit), then we aren’t truly acting good, out of love for God and for others.

Tyrion rejects a God who does not verbalize to us, in the present, which of our actions are good and which are bad. But what he has not demonstrated is that God must teach this way or that, if God were to teach this way, it would produce the sort of believers that God desires.

Now, certainly, he reveals some limitations of thinking of God as a teacher, but there are limitations to thinking of God with any analogy. I find it hard to discredit the voice of my conscience or the grace I receive from making a confession.

Basically, Tyrion rejects what he believes God should be and not the God we believe we have.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Since all our knowledge comes from God, explain, please, who could be a better teacher than God?

 

[MPat]

Very good analysis! But think about it a little further. At the beginning of our learning process the small children are “trained” exactly as the dogs are trained. Immediate feedback, immediate reward or punishment. Since dogs will never grow up, there will be no “teaching”, it will always be “training”.

Supposedly we, humans reach a level, when training can be replaced by teaching. No “on the spot”, immediate feedback is given - BUT the feedback IS given maybe a week later when the papers are graded, when there is still room for learning from one’s mistakes and errors. Not when the “game over” sign flashes on the screen, and no more “free, new life” is given to the player. And this is manifestly missing. It is a “one strike and you are out” type of game, even if the game consists of many parts. But several of those parts can lead to fatal mistakes (what you would call unrepented mortal sins).

Naturally, the analogy is not 100% correct. No analogy ever can be that precise. But we can refine it. The teacher might be teaching the student how to fly an airplane, or drive a car. In the theoretical phase, in the classroom it is fine to postpone the feedback a week or so… but not when the hands-on part of the training starts. (And it is precise to speak of training here, not just teaching). The trainer lets the student to take control, allows the student to make minor, not fatal mistakes, but as soon as the student embarks on a fatal course (either to himself or to others), the trainer (if he is a good trainer) will override the student “free will” preventing the fatal outcome (the trainer might be performing his duties remotely, so his own existence is not threatened by the student’s mistake). No amount of appeal to “free will” can justify the negligence of the “teacher” who does not interfere when the outcome would be fatal.

Actually, I had in mind teaching something in University. There a good professor would help the students who come and study. But the students who show no effort will get a failing grade and be thrown out, where (as far, as the University is concerned) there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth”…

Also, the professor is not supposed to do all work by himself. There can be other professors, “teaching assistants”… Not to mention that the student is supposed to do some work too.

Likewise, God also has “teaching assistants”. For example, parents. And the feedback can come sooner than you think. For example, someone who doesn’t know that punching everyone one meets in the face is not a good idea is not unlikely to get a lot of “feedback”…

And, by the way, one cannot sin mortally without “full knowledge”, so the sins before that “feedback” (assuming that one really doesn’t suspect that punching everyone in the face is not a very good deed) are not mortal. Thus we have no “fatal accidents” in this sense. If it is “fatal”, it is not an accident.

So, looks like there are no problems here…

Now, even if I would take your reply strictly as written, then God would not be good dog-trainer, and as such he would lack “perfection” in that respect.

Sorry, but I don’t think that is a good joke… And I don’t think it should count as an argument…

 

[jonathan_hili]

None of those qualify as reliable, correct feedback. The catholic church is not accepted by the non-religious, the non-christian, the non-catholic and even a very sizable portion of the catholic population. The bible is not accepted by the non-religious and the non-christian population, and even the christians cannot agree how to interpret it - so as a reliable feedback it is useless. I suspect that your definition of a well-formed conscience is the one which is total agreement with the teachings of the church. People’s conscience (in general) is formed during their formative years, and they learn what has been repeatedly told to them. I child growing up in a white-supremacist family (who are devout christians!) will accept the discrimination against blacks and Jews, and have no “pangs” of conscience against it. I have no idea what the “movement of the spirit” might be, so I cannot comment on it.

So, there is no universal feedback mechanism, which would help us - unambiguously - in our dilemmas.

Now, maybe you might argue that the church (as the sole interpreter of the bible) is the one and only real authority, and those who disagree are in error, and it is not the church’s fault that its role (as a feedback) is disputed. This kind of argument could only be accepted if God would come and endorse the church as the only valid “voice” which speaks for God. Of course I am aware that the church “claims” exactly that, but such “self-authenticating” claims are dime a dozen.

But surely that’s not the point you were arguing. You said that God was not a good teacher because He does not give immediate feedback to guide us but now you’re arguing that the problem is that the feedback is not reliable or infallible, or could be disputed. However, you’d admit that that any teacher’s authority could be disputed as being unreliable or infallible. Furthermore - and this is the crux - God judges us on what we know. These means I have cited above are all ways that God guides us but obviously there are others: the beauty of nature, the love we experience in relationships, the empathy we feel, etc. I’d say God is an excellent teacher precisely because He doesn’t just give us one means of feedback - practically everything is feedback; even our bodies.

Personally, as a teacher myself, I can see the wisdom of this approach. A student learns better not necessarily by being told but by learning for himself, by learning through observation, experimentation and experience. God reaches us through all these things. Importantly, though, the student needs to be open to the these experiences to learn from them.

I have seen this too, many of times. Again, a good parent or a good teacher only allows enough freedom to make those mistakes one can learn from. To give the freedom to make fatal mistakes is ridiculous.

Is that true? So if your son decided to go out to work, even though it was a wet day and the roads were slippery, would you physically restrain him from doing so because he might have a car accident (presumably, you are strong enough to do so)? I don’t think you would. We have to respect people’s freedom, even if they do things that endanger their lives. Besides, it’s not as if God doesn’t try to convince us to live rightly, so that we don’t endanger our lives (principally, our eternal lives) - and this goes back to the whole point of God as a good teacher.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Tyrion - Is your problem with God that you feel He should have you, and indeed the rest of humanity, on some sort of toddler lead? A sort of thus far and no further ‘freedom of will’.

Or is it that you have issues with God creating us with fallibility and the ‘freedom’ to exercise that fallibility, to put ourselves in danger if we so wish, and to not listen to or act upon the signs he does place all about the place, including within our own minds.

Do you wish God to be a strict nanny to us and not treat us like thinking and morally aware ‘adults’ who have long left that amoral and rather limited ‘Garden of Eden’?

 

[Tyrion]

There a good professor would help the students who come and study.

And that is exactly what is missing. No lectures from God.

But the students who show no effort will get a failing grade…

That is trivially obvious, not worth to mention.

Also, the professor is not supposed to do all work by himself. There can be other professors, “teaching assistants”…

You mean that God is “too busy” to do all the work by himself? That would be a ridiculous assumption, but if he wishes to shovel the dirty work on others, he could come and personally announce the “assistants”. And please do not say that God named the church for that role. The church merely claims that God appointed it, and anyone can make such a claim.

Likewise, God also has “teaching assistants”. For example, parents.

The parents do not speak for God either.

And the feedback can come sooner than you think. For example, someone who doesn’t know that punching everyone one meets in the face is not a good idea is not unlikely to get a lot of “feedback”…

That is a feedback, all right, but there is no reason to attribute it to God. One can learn that violence is an inferior method of conflict resolution. There is no “feedback” to reinforce that masturbation is “sinful”, when it not only has no negative physiological effects, but actually has positive ones. (The blindness “hypothesis” was refuted a long time ago.)

And, by the way, one cannot sin mortally without “full knowledge”, so the sins before that “feedback” (assuming that one really doesn’t suspect that punching everyone in the face is not a very good deed) are not mortal. Thus we have no “fatal accidents” in this sense. If it is “fatal”, it is not an accident.

No one has ever explained what constitutes “full knowledge”. That is what God should do. I have full knowledge that the church considers “fornication” a “grave act”, and when I was young I engaged in those acts “willfully”. However, I reject the church as an authority, and therefore I did not have full knowledge that fornication is a “grave act”. In my assessment there is a world of difference between “action ‘X’ is a grave matter”, and “in the opinion of ‘Y’ it is a grave matter”.

So did I commit a “mortal” sin? By the way the dogmas also say that rejecting the authority of the church is also a mortal sin… so God’s clarification is desperately needed… and he does not come to give it.

 

[Tyrion]

But surely that’s not the point you were arguing. You said that God was not a good teacher because He does not give immediate feedback to guide us but now you’re arguing that the problem is that the feedback is not reliable or infallible, or could be disputed. However, you’d admit that that any teacher’s authority could be disputed as being unreliable or infallible. Furthermore - and this is the crux - God judges us on what we know. These means I have cited above are all ways that God guides us but obviously there are others: the beauty of nature, the love we experience in relationships, the empathy we feel, etc. I’d say God is an excellent teacher precisely because He doesn’t just give us one means of feedback - practically everything is feedback; even our bodies.

I already addressed this in the post above to MPat.

Personally, as a teacher myself, I can see the wisdom of this approach. A student learns better not necessarily by being told but by learning for himself, by learning through observation, experimentation and experience. God reaches us through all these things. Importantly, though, the student needs to be open to the these experiences to learn from them.

Indeed, that is a huge part of how one learns. But without giving a “starting kick” it is extremely inefficient. You do not throw your child from the house at the age of 3, and tell him: “go and learn on your own”.

Is that true? So if your son decided to go out to work, even though it was a wet day and the roads were slippery, would you physically restrain him from doing so because he might have a car accident (presumably, you are strong enough to do so)? I don’t think you would.

Bad example. If my son would wield a gun, pointing to his head and telling me that he is about to pull the trigger, I certainly would try to prevent this act. But, yes, if he would explain that he already has a terminal cancer, and his pain is getting unendurable, then I would endorse his decision - precisely because I love him and I would respect his freedom. And funny, that in this case most catholics would force him to live in horrible pain, and would not respect his freedom… so how and where is this “respect” you speak about? Would you practice what you preach?

We have to respect people’s freedom, even if they do things that endanger their lives.

Nonsense. What about the freedom to blow up a city? Is that “freedom” also “sacrosanct”?

Besides, it’s not as if God doesn’t try to convince us to live rightly, so that we don’t endanger our lives (principally, our eternal lives) - and this goes back to the whole point of God as a good teacher.

Sorry, I must have missed that lesson. When and where did he do that?

 

[Tyrion]

Tyrion - Is your problem with God that you feel He should have you, and indeed the rest of humanity, on some sort of toddler lead? A sort of thus far and no further ‘freedom of will’.

Or is it that you have issues with God creating us with fallibility and the ‘freedom’ to exercise that fallibility, to put ourselves in danger if we so wish, and to not listen to or act upon the signs he does place all about the place, including within our own minds.

Do you wish God to be a strict nanny to us and not treat us like thinking and morally aware ‘adults’ who have long left that amoral and rather limited ‘Garden of Eden’?

I have absolutely no problem with “God”. I have problem with the inconsistencies that the believers say about God.

Btw, what was wrong with the “garden of Eden”? Indeed a “good” God would not present a temptation, just like a good parent would not place a bowl of poisoned candy within easy reach of the child, and sternly warn him: “do not touch that candy!”. Only an indifferent or malicious person would knowingly endanger the life of a child he allegedly “loves”. It is not enough to proclaim loudly how much you love your child, when all your actions (visible to all who care to look) show that you “don’t give a dayum” as Rhett Butler said.

 

[Ion]

I did have “feedback” from God and it is painfull; but also feedback that it is joyfull.
I do not think that you understand what you are asking…