Why cant God just communicate with us directly?

[sophion]

What makes you think that he witnessed because of that?

because in the story Jesus found it necessary to give him the proof he demanded. it is what restored his faith.

Many - Christians, former Buddhists and former Muslims - would not claim divine locutions and yet they convert (or revert) and witness wonderfully for Christ too. St Thomas More is one - do you not know who he was or are you just conveniently ignoring his glorious witness for the faith in spite of not being graced with divine locutions?

there folks who are content with faith. and there are those who needed proof like Thomas.

The technology is maling us fatter and unhealthier than ever before. The oppoaite of smart. And as a woman and a lawyer, I can yell you things have not changed nearly as much on the human rights front as you would like to think. It’s more concealed but a lot of discrimination and oppression still goes on.

of course there would always be oppression and discrimination. the difference is that its now concealed. not like before when it was publicly accepted and widespread. the fact that you are a lawyer is proof of a better world.

 

[Gorgias]

educated women of today are smarter right?

free people should be smarter than slaves because of education, right?

knowledge of modern science makes us smarter, right?

freedom of opinion and free access to facts makes us smart.

No…these are examples of difference in education, not greater intelligence. There’s a huge difference…!

I would argue, by the way, that ‘freedom of opinion’ can, in fact, lower our understanding – if we’re exposed to poorly constructed opinions, and adopt them ourselves, we can end up worse off!

 

[sophion]

No…these are examples of more education, not greater intelligence. There’s a huge difference…!

education doesnt make one smarter?

 

[Gorgias]

education doesnt make one smarter?

Sorry… I was editing my post while you were replying.

But yes, I stand by my statement: education makes us more educated; it doesn’t make us smarter. Smarter people would use education to make better decisions – not all do. Smarter people would use education to solve problems – some use it create new problems.

Do some use their education wisely? Certainly. Does education cause intelligence? No way!

 

[sophion]

Sorry… I was editing my post while you were replying.

But yes, I stand by my statement: education makes us more educated; it doesn’t make us smarter. Smarter people would use education to make better decisions – not all do. Smarter people would use education to solve problems – some use it create new problems.

Do some use their education wisely? Certainly. Does education cause intelligence? No way!

okay let me tackle that from another angle…

Modern Education instills in us a mind of tackling problems logically and systematically…which usually involves proof.

Religion’s lack of proof is one major factor why non-religiousness is the fastest growing faction in the world today.

 

[Gorgias]

Modern Education instills in us a mind of tackling problems logically and systematically…which usually involves proof.

In the sciences? Maybe. Then you get into real life, where politics and back-stabbing and one-upmanship is the way of life. Hardly ‘logical’ or ‘systematic’.

In any case, ‘modern education’ these days instills in us the ‘virtues’ of relativism, post-modernism, ‘tolerance as the supreme virtue’, and other illogical, unsystematic frameworks.

Religion’s lack of proof is one major factor why non-religiousness is the fastest growing faction in the world today.

This is unconvincing. Religion has always been empirically unprovable. If “non-religiousness is the fastest growing faction in the world today” (and I’m not conceding that it is), then there has to be another reason. Would you like to try again?

 

[LilyM]

because in the story Jesus found it necessary to give him the proof he demanded. it is what restored his faith.

What makes you think He found it necessary? He did lots of things that might not have been strictly necessary. Did He not find it equally necessary to chide Thomas, albeit gently, for not exercising his faith muscle a bit more?

there folks who are content with faith. and there are those who needed proof like Thomas.

Need is very different to want, as any parent who buys a child a candy bar in a store because the child starts crying for it will tell you.

of course there would always be oppression and discrimination. the difference is that its now concealed. not like before when it was publicly accepted and widespread. the fact that you are a lawyer is proof of a better world.

And the fact that I and my fellow female lawyers still get called ‘girls’ by male colleagues who I am sure would bristle at the thought of being demoted to the level of ‘boys’ is proof that different is not better.

As is the fact that many female lawyers still get steered into what are considered by the males to be ‘female friendly’ areas of law like family law. For ‘female friendly’ read lower-profile and not quite as remunerative as areas like corporate law. Not a coincidence.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Pray for faith and you may get your evidence.

Of course prayer requires faith. There is no escaping the need to have faith. You have to risk being wrong and a fool to the world before you can find God.

 

[sophion]

This is unconvincing. Religion has always been empirically unprovable. If “non-religiousness is the fastest growing faction in the world today” (and I’m not conceding that it is), then there has to be another reason. Would you like to try again?

in the past people would just believe anything. nowadays more and more people are looking for proof.

there are other factors too of course. but before you put the blame squarely on other factors do remember that people have always been people. the only difference now is that people are more educated. less tolerant of bigotry and mistakes.

 

[Gorgias]

in the past people would just believe anything. nowadays more and more people are looking for proof.

there are other factors too of course. but before you put the blame squarely on other factors do remember that people have always been people. the only difference now is that people are more educated. less tolerant of bigotry and mistakes.

I’m gonna guess you’re somewhat young – you have quite an idealized notion of what things were like “in the past” and how wonderful things are now.

From a historical perspective, I think your assertions don’t hold up. People tend to believe in those things that are believed by the people and organizations that they themselves trust. These assertions from trusted figures were always made with a framework of proof; if you think that, in the past, people were smiling naive idiots, then you might do well to learn more history. What’s changed is what people accept as a standard of proof; unfortunately, today, due to the success that science has had in explaining the natural world, people make the mistake of thinking that scientific proof is the only kind of proof that’s out there. People also are so accustomed to the ubiquity of news coverage, that they unreasonably assert that, unless there’s such ‘proof’ of assertions, there’s no ability to say anything reasonably about a historical event. So, today we trust in scientists and cable news networks: we don’t ask for proof, but rather, we do the same thing we’ve done as people for ages – we accept the word of those we trust.

So, where does this leave us? Certainly, we’re in possession of a greater number of scientific facts; this knowledge has enabled us to create increasingly more complex and impressive technologies. However, does it follow that we’re more oriented toward ‘proof’? Of course not. People make decisions as they always have: based on self-interest, and on the ways the decisions will affect their loved ones, and on the ways that these situations interact with their personal outlooks on life. None of these are items that speak to ‘proof’ or ‘greater intelligence’; none rely, per se, on levels of education; none speak to an aversion to ‘bigotry’ or ‘tolerance’. Sometimes, we see evidence that we’re moving toward greater tolerance – yet, those who espouse tolerance show a remarkable lack of tolerance for those who don’t share their opinions and views! Sometimes, those who decry bigotry see certain types of bigotry, yet are completely blind to other bigotries that just don’t hit their radar. ‘Tolerance’ and ‘bigotry’ have become hot button issues… but I’m not certain that their prominence in societal discourse have led to the kind of characteristic differences you assert…

 

[sophion]

^ i am young.

you think the people of old arent much more naive and gullible than the people of today? so from when did superstitions come from? in the philippines though its catholic majority we have hundreds of superstitions and they are kept alive by old people. and the older people are the more superstitions they believe. for the young and educated people its nonsense.

so why do you think non belief is the fastest growing point of view? what do you think causes it?

 

[Peter_Plato]

okay let me tackle that from another angle…

Modern Education instills in us a mind of tackling problems logically and systematically…which usually involves proof.

Religion’s lack of proof is one major factor why non-religiousness is the fastest growing faction in the world today.

Perhaps it is not the lack of proof, but the heightened need for proof that is the reason for the rise of non-religiousness. It may be that that need has arisen precisely because of a lack of trust, which, as CS Lewis points out in the Abolition of Man, comes expectedly as the result of the vacuity that results when man assumes power over the very thing, nature, that allows him to have any power whatsoever in the first place. Nature is no longer trusted and the intentions behind the will to power in man certainly cannot be, so what is there left? Trust in God, perhaps? Yes but what kind of God? A God of power? That is apparently the kind you seem to be wanting by demanding that he demonstrate the power to overwhelm the “will to power” in man!

You brought up the doubts of Thomas as being like yours in a previous post. I submit they were not in the least like yours, but precisely the opposite of yours.

We are called to know, trust, love and serve God. Thomas knew, loved and wanted to serve the true God that he had come to know in Jesus. When Jesus appeared, Thomas doubted the appearance precisely because he had trouble trusting that the “awe” factor of Jesus’ resurrected body was in fact real; the kind of sublime goodness of Jesus that Thomas had come to know as manifesting the “reality” underlying reality, was not the surreal quality he was seeing before his eyes. That is why he wanted to touch the wounds of Jesus to make sure this was reality and not a figment of it or an hallucination. Thomas did not trust the “awe” factor, you, on the other hand, are demanding it.

You seem to be demanding a wonderous sign to disrupt a caracature of reality that you have created in your mind. Something to drive away a bad dream. Unlike Thomas who knew, loved and wanted to serve God, but only needed to be certain that this was the God he trusted, you seem to want a sign in order to begin to know, trust, love and serve a god only if he can conjure up a wonderous deed worthy of your attention. These are two very different forms of doubt.

I suggest you read (by clicking here ->) "The God as Saviour and Teacher: An Essay of the Imagination" from Philosophical Fragments by Soren Kierkegaard especially from “Suppose then a king who loved a humble maiden…”

A couple of quotes from the essay:

Since we found that the union could not be brought about by an elevation it must be attempted by a descent. Let the learner be x. In this x we must include the lowliest; for if even Socrates refused to establish a false fellowship with the clever, how can we suppose that the God would make a distinction! In order that the union may be brought about, the God must therefore become the equal of such a one, and so he will appear in the likeness of the humblest. But the humblest is one who must serve others, and the God will therefore appear in the form of a servant. But this servant-form is no mere outer garment, like the king’s beggar-cloak, which therefore flutters loosely about him and betrays the king; it is not like the filmy summer-cloak of Socrates, which though woven of nothing yet both conceals and reveals. It is his true form and figure. For this is the unfathomable nature of love, that it desires equality with the beloved, not in jest merely, but in earnest and truth. And it is the omnipotence of the love which is so resolved that it is able to accomplish its purpose, which neither Socrates nor the king could do, whence their assumed figures constituted after all a kind of deceit.

Also:

*Every other form of revelation would be a deception in the eyes of love; for either the learner would first have to be changed, and the fact concealed from him that this was necessary (but love does not alter the beloved, it alters itself); or there would be permitted to prevail a frivolous ignorance of the fact that the entire relationship was a delusion. (This was the error of paganism.) Every other form of revelation would be a deception from the standpoint of the divine love. *

What do you want? To know and love God? Or to know through his demonstration by wonders and signs that he is worthy of being known and loved by you? Are you taking him as he is or only if he shows some level of merit? Do you love the poor and wretched, the rejected and broken or only those powerful enough to provoke wonder?

Perhaps you do not see God because he has become that which is poor and wretched in you - he loves you more than you love yourself. Instead of running from that to the “shiny” and glamorous appearances and signs that will soon fade and disappear, try looking for the substantial reality of what is that will always be. God may be hiding where you least expect.

 

[JimG]

in the past people would just believe anything. nowadays more and more people are looking for proof.

there are other factors too of course. but before you put the blame squarely on other factors do remember that people have always been people. the only difference now is that people are more educated. less tolerant of bigotry and mistakes.

OK, I’m old, but I have to disagree with this. My evidence is merely anecdotal and general, but it seems to me that recent generations are far more gullible than prior generations. People now will believe nearly anything, just because they can look it up on Google. Technology has allowed for the dissemination of misinformation far more rapidly and widely than at any time in history. There are times when the modern age seems to be to be peculiarly anti-intellectual. People are a lot less likely to do real research which doesn’t involve sitting in front of a screen.

 

[sophion]

Perhaps it is not the lack of proof, but the heightened need for proof that is the reason for the rise of non-religiousness. It may be that that need has arisen precisely because of a lack of trust, which, as CS Lewis points out in the Abolition of Man, comes expectedly as the result of the vacuity that results when man assumes power over the very thing, nature, that allows him to have any power whatsoever in the first place. Nature is no longer trusted and the intentions behind the will to power in man certainly cannot be, so what is there left? Trust in God, perhaps? Yes but what kind of God? A God of power? That is apparently the kind you seem to be wanting by demanding that he demonstrate the power to overwhelm the “will to power” in man!

lack of proof
heightened need for proof
lack of trust

theyre all on the same boat.

but what is it that people dont trust? …the church, the book, the traditions…in short “hear-say”.

You brought up the doubts of Thomas as being like yours in a previous post. I submit they were not in the least like yours, but precisely the opposite of yours.

We are called to know, trust, love and serve God. Thomas knew, loved and wanted to serve the true God that he had come to know in Jesus. When Jesus appeared, Thomas doubted the appearance precisely because he had trouble trusting that the “awe” factor of Jesus’ resurrected body was in fact real; the kind of sublime goodness of Jesus that Thomas had come to know as manifesting the “reality” underlying reality, was not the surreal quality he was seeing before his eyes. That is why he wanted to touch the wounds of Jesus to make sure this was reality and not a figment of it or an hallucination. Thomas did not trust the “awe” factor, you, on the other hand, are demanding it.

my friend, according to the story Thomas was absent during the apparitions. What Thomas doubted was the testimony of his friends.

now i dont know where you got that idea about the “awe factor”. Thomas demanded proof that is only possible by miraculous means. The same is what we ask. There is nothing wrong with that.

You seem to be demanding a wonderous sign to disrupt a caracature of reality that you have created in your mind. Something to drive away a bad dream. Unlike Thomas who knew, loved and wanted to serve God, but only needed to be certain that this was the God he trusted, you seem to want a sign in order to begin to know, trust, love and serve a god only if he can conjure up a wonderous deed worthy of your attention. These are two very different forms of doubt.

i am no different. I was a devoted Christian. I loved & served God, or so I thought. But I lost the trust after realizing that everything was based on ‘hear-say’ and that much in religion makes no sense—original sin, rebellion in heaven, hell, immaculate conception — the subjects i am posting here.

i rejected religion. not god.
anyone who claims that their religion is true, let him prove it that its from God. extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. right? its all i’m asking.

 

[sophion]

OK, I’m old, but I have to disagree with this. My evidence is merely anecdotal and general, but it seems to me that recent generations are far more gullible than prior generations. People now will believe nearly anything, just because they can look it up on Google. Technology has allowed for the dissemination of misinformation far more rapidly and widely than at any time in history. There are times when the modern age seems to be to be peculiarly anti-intellectual. People are a lot less likely to do real research which doesn’t involve sitting in front of a screen.

like what? those hollywood celebrity stuff?

back then too many people of your generation used to believe that jesus was really born in december. rabbits foot, feng shui, black cats, black magic, voodoo, etc etc etc. perhaps no longer as much today. but when i was small i remembered the very old folks keep worrying about such things. catholic or no you have to eat in a certain way or bad things would happen. and other such nonsense.

 

[Peter_Plato]

i am no different. I was a devoted Christian. I loved & served God, or so I thought. But I lost the trust after realizing that everything was based on ‘hear-say’ and that much in religion makes no sense—original sin, rebellion in heaven, hell, immaculate conception — the subjects i am posting here.

So you are rejecting that God can speak through others to you? That others cannot be trusted by God to be messengers? It seems that this is your own version of original sin - that every human being is a reprobate when it comes to truth and only a God that makes himself plainly known to you by signs and wonders is the one that is trustworthy. The Church’s doctrine of original sin is at least balanced by the notion that God’s grace has the power to redeem and make good.

Your doctrine is that human beings are such liars, or, at least, so out of touch with truth that even the omnipotent God could not work through them to reveal truth to those around them. Humans cannot be trusted at all and all the power of God cannot change that, in your view. The “communion of saints” cannot have meaning for you, it seems, because you have determined that God would not lower himself to act through others to teach you because all they are capable of is “hear say.”

i rejected religion. not god.
anyone who claims that their religion is true, let him prove it that its from God. extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. right? its all i’m asking.

What you mean is “from god,” that is from the kind of god that you have conceived to be rather than the God who is. The reason I say this is because you are insisting that this “god” you conceive of is the kind who would speak directly to you and bypass everyone else. A God who would stoop to speak to “a people” or a “community of believers” is not the kind of god that is of interest to you or at all worth knowing. Perhaps God is requiring some humility from you, that you are no better than anyone else, just as capable of error, and just as capable of not seeing the truth as others, before he reveals himself more fully to you?

Kierkegaard again:

Thus the God takes pleasure in arraying the lily in a garb more glorious than that of Solomon; but if there could be any thought of an understanding here, would it not be a sorry delusion of the lily’s, if when it looked upon its fine raiment it thought that it was on account of the raiment that the God loved it? Instead of standing dauntless in the field, sporting with the wind, carefree as the gust that blows, would it not under the influence of such a thought languish and droop, not daring to lift up its head? It was the God’s solicitude to prevent this, for the lily’s shoot is tender and easily broken. But if the Moment is to have decisive significance, how unspeakable will be the God’s anxiety! There once lived a people who had a profound understanding of the divine; this people thought that no man could see the God and live. – Who grasps this contradiction of sorrow: not to reveal oneself is the death of love, to reveal oneself is the death of the beloved! The minds of men so often yearn for might and power, and their thoughts are constantly being drawn to such things, as if by their attainment all mysteries would be resolved.

 

[Peter_Plato]

…much in religion makes no sense—original sin, rebellion in heaven, hell, immaculate conception — the subjects i am posting here.

i rejected religion. not god.
anyone who claims that their religion is true, let him prove it that its from God. extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. right? its all i’m asking.

Much in life makes “no sense,” why should religion be any different?

Some extraordinary things about life are simply taken for granted. The fact that I exist, that I was conceived inside another human being, that I was born and came out of that human being through a tube, that I have two arms, two legs and ten fingers, that I dwell inside this strange body over which I have only a limited measure of control, that the world around me has plants and animals, stars and air; these are all extraordinary and totally unexpected. I had no inkling about the world that I would be born into and had not even conceived of the possibility of a “me” before I was born. These are all extraordinary things - but they just are.

Original sin, rebellion in heaven, hell and the immaculate conception all pale in wonder when compared to the extraordinary things that I face each day. These issues for you, just don’t seem that difficult to believe for me and, additionally, they explain a great deal about the world when taken together with all the other things we are asked to take on faith.

The simple “facts” about life are far more extraordinary, but simply are to be received, why should the truths of “faith” be any different?

 

[Gorgias]

you think the people of old arent much more naive and gullible than the people of today?

Not substantially. Today, we’re naive and gullible… but about different things.

so from when did superstitions come from? in the philippines though its catholic majority we have hundreds of superstitions and they are kept alive by old people. and the older people are the more superstitions they believe. for the young and educated people its nonsense.

Superstition, I would assert, is a way to describe a way to work with a situation that you don’t fully understand. At the time that they’re created, they’re the best possible explanation to fit the facts. Trust me – by the time you get to be their age, you’ll hold to a number of things that your grandchildren will roll their eyes at, and call ‘superstition’…

so why do you think non belief is the fastest growing point of view?

That’s just it: I don’t. I reject this hypothesis of yours (especially since you assert it without proof).

I think, though, that many have looked at historical systems of belief, and rather than attempting to seek modern modes of expressing the truths in these systems, they choose rather to abandon them or develop their own, competing systems of belief. This may be more or less characteristic of a particular region, but I don’t know I’d go so far as to say that it’s “the fastest growing point of view”…

 

[sophion]

The reason I say this is because you are insisting that this “god” you conceive of is the kind who would speak directly to you and bypass everyone else. A God who would stoop to speak to “a people” or a “community of believers” is not the kind of god that is of interest to you or at all worth knowing.

excuse me. but that is what i am arguing about here!

read the title:

---

Why cant God just communicate with us* directly?**

your comments are best suited against the bible god character. speaking to a handful of people and baypassing everyone else.

What you mean is “from god,” that is from the kind of god that you have conceived to be rather than the God who is.

so let us hear from God “who is”.

note: “from God”. not “from you”, not “from some priest” or “from some book”

So you are rejecting that God can speak through others to you? That others cannot be trusted by God to be messengers? It seems that this is your own version of original sin - that every human being is a reprobate when it comes to truth and only a God that makes himself plainly known to you by signs and wonders is the one that is trustworthy. The Church’s doctrine of original sin is at least balanced by the notion that God’s grace has the power to redeem and make good.

Your doctrine is that human beings are such liars, or, at least, so out of touch with truth that even the omnipotent God could not work through them to reveal truth to those around them.

liars? not necessarily. you know “pass the message”? a long line of people who transfers a message from one mouth to another. what it proves is that when word of mouth is concerned LIES ARE CREATED BY ACCIDENT. the message gets distorted. thats why most people are smart enough not to trust HEAR-SAY. the difference today is that through education more and more people are learning the fact that major religions are created through hear say. especially christianity.

 

[sophion]

That’s just it: I don’t. I reject this hypothesis of yours (especially since you assert it without proof).

I think, though, that many have looked at historical systems of belief, and rather than attempting to seek modern modes of expressing the truths in these systems, they choose rather to abandon them or develop their own, competing systems of belief. This may be more or less characteristic of a particular region, but I don’t know I’d go so far as to say that it’s “the fastest growing point of view”…

well at least in america it is:

usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/03/09/new-survey-those-with-no-religion-fastest-growing-tradition

New Survey: Those With No Religion Fastest-Growing Tradition

pewforum.org/Unaffiliated/nones-on-the-rise.aspx

“Nones” on the Rise
One-in-Five Adults Have No Religious Affiliation