Why cant God just communicate with us directly?

[Peter_Plato]

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.

God has spoken to large groups of people historically (parting of the Red Sea) and individually to hundreds of millions of people of faith. Or are you calling everyone who claims an awareness and intimacy with God, liars? The Patriarchs, prophets, saints, martyrs, doctors of the Church, ordinary men and women through the ages, etc. are all liars, deceivers or just deluded?

so let us hear from God “who is”.

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

Maybe the “us” includes all of the above, but you are dismissing them all for your own definition of “us.”

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.

I am certain that Jesus’ resurrection must have been an “ACCIDENT.” A large group of people somehow confused the message that started out as “Jesus rested with the dead,” and morphed it telephonically into, “Jesus rose from the dead.”

The problem with this “theory” of corruption of the message is that Jesus’ life, death and resurrection correspond so perfectly with the underlying theme of the entire Old Testament. Additionally, it is not possible to contrive the past 2000 years of history, retroactively to fit the events predicted in the previous 3000 years.

*Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a son of God. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected." Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hope for the wages of holiness, nor discern the prize for blameless souls; for God created man for incorruption, and made him in the image of his own eternity… (Wisdom 2:12-23) *

The Book of Wisdom was written in Greek in the first century BCE by an Alexandrian Jew. Do you think he somehow got things “confused” before the fact or do you think the Apostles somehow jerry-rigged their story to fit the then obscure writings of this fellow about 100 years before their time?

What about this interesting bit from Plato’s Republic:

What they will say is this: that such being his disposition the just man will have to endure the lash, the rack, chains, the branding-iron in his eyes, and finally, after every extremity of suffering, he will be crucified, and so will learn his lesson that not to be but to seem just is what we ought to desire. … (Republic Book 2, Section 362)

Strangely coincidental, even eerily prophetic, from a culture that thought crucifixion to be barbaric and never used it until Alexander.

 

[Gorgias]

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

Hmm… I might suggest that you rely on headlines less, and read the actual data more carefully. From the ARIS 2008 report:

                            2001                      2008
Affiliation              Nbr      Pct            Nbr       Pct
Catholic                50,873K   24.5         57,199K     25.1
'None'                  29,481K   14.1         34,169K     15.0

In other words, from 2001 to 2008, the number of Catholics increased by 6,326,000 and the number of ‘no religious affiliation’ responses rose 4,688,000. “No religious affiliation” wasn’t the “fastest growing tradition” – Catholics increased by greater numbers!

(What the survey actually said was that “no affiliation” was the only response that increased in each of the states. However, what the facts make clear is that, while self-identifying Catholics are decreasing in some states, this decline is more than made up for in other states.)

So, I would assert that your own sources deny the claim you’re attempting to make. If you want to come back to the Church, though, and be part of the winning team, we’d love to have you back!

 

[sophion]

God has spoken to large groups of people historically (parting of the Red Sea) and individually to hundreds of millions of people of faith. Or are you calling everyone who claims an awareness and intimacy with God, liars? The Patriarchs, prophets, saints, martyrs, doctors of the Church, ordinary men and women through the ages, etc. are all liars, deceivers or just deluded?

may i remind you i am referring to literal communications as described in the bible.
much of those folks rely on feelings and assumptions. which is why there is great contradictions between them and the result: tens of thousands of sects!
no i dont call them ‘liars’. i call them “sincerely mistaken”.

I am certain that Jesus’ resurrection must have been an “ACCIDENT.” A large group of people somehow confused the message that started out as “Jesus rested with the dead,” and morphed it telephonically into, “Jesus rose from the dead.”

why not. we all know a little gossip can blow out of proportions.

The problem with this “theory” of corruption of the message is that Jesus’ life, death and resurrection correspond so perfectly with the underlying theme of the entire Old Testament.

then why arent jews buying it? i

Additionally, it is not possible to contrive the past 2000 years of history, retroactively to fit the events predicted in the previous 3000 years.

The Book of Wisdom was written in Greek in the first century BCE by an Alexandrian Jew. Do you think he somehow got things “confused” before the fact or do you think the Apostles somehow jerry-rigged their story to fit the then obscure writings of this fellow about 100 years before their time?

my friend, none of the gospels were written by an apostle. these gospels developed over time, changing as they went along. your scholars said that. not me:
The Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,[28] summarized by Raymond E. Brown as follows:[29]

1. 
   *]An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
   *]A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
   *]The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85-90AD
   
   *.
   
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_john#Authorship
   

   What about this interesting bit from Plato’s Republic:
   
   Strangely coincidental, even eerily prophetic, from a culture that thought crucifixion to be barbaric and never used it until Alexander.

   i agree with historians who admit that were was a man referred to as ‘jesus’ today who suffered, died, and served as an inspiration for the development of christianity. but none of these historians would confirm that such a man came back from the dead. sorry.

 

[sophion]

In other words, from 2001 to 2008, the number of Catholics increased by 6,326,000 and the number of ‘no religious affiliation’ responses rose 4,688,000. “No religious affiliation” wasn’t the “fastest growing tradition” – Catholics increased by greater numbers!

my friend, your math is a little short.

6,326,000 is only a 12.43% increase.

while 4,688,000 is a 15.9% increase.



and guess what, much of that catholic increase is based on mexicans crossing the border!

 

[Gorgias]

my friend, your math is a little short.

6,326,000 is only a 12.43% increase.

while 4,688,000 is a 15.9% increase.

Nope, I’m not doing any math here, just copying the numbers from the ARIS report (page 3, if you’d like to double-check my facts). And, whereas “no answers” only grew by 4.6 milion respondants, “Catholic” grew by 6.3 million. Percentages don’t really tell the story here – it comes down to the raw numbers. And, using the raw numbers, there were more people gained in the “Catholic” category than “none”. Spin it as you wish (heck, if you want, I can spin it to say that the Catholic gains were 50% bigger than the “none” gains!), but the numbers don’t bear you out.

and guess what, much of that catholic increase is based on mexicans crossing the border!

Hey, if you want to distance yourself from your own stats, now that they’ve been shown to be less flattering than you thought they were, that’s fine with me!

 

[sophion]

Nope, I’m not doing any math here, just copying the numbers from the ARIS report (page 3, if you’d like to double-check my facts). And, whereas “no answers” only grew by 4.6 milion respondants, “Catholic” grew by 6.3 million. Percentages don’t really tell the story here – it comes down to the raw numbers. And, using the raw numbers, there were more people gained in the “Catholic” category than “none”. Spin it as you wish (heck, if you want, I can spin it to say that the Catholic gains were 50% bigger than the “none” gains!), but the numbers don’t bear you out.

6 million vs 4 million. raw numbers indeed. we are catching up!

 

[Peter_Plato]

my friend, none of the gospels were written by an apostle. these gospels developed over time, changing as they went along.

Note that I did not say anything about the Gospels, I referred to the “story” of the Apostles which is the core of the authoritative teaching that forms the creed and magisterial tradition of the Church. The Scriptures rely upon the authority of the Church for the determination of their authenticity.

Your choice of Brown as a “Catholic” scholar to support your claim is somewhat less than honest or perhaps shows a lack of knowledge of the issues on your part because Brown does not hold faithful to the Church’s teaching on Scriptural inerrancy.

“Brown remains controversial among traditionalist Catholics because of their claim that he denied the inerrancy of the whole of Scripture and cast doubt on the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith.” (From the Wikipedia article on Brown).

Brown’s views were cherry picked by you as rather feeble evidence in your support.

 

[Peter_Plato]

6 million vs 4 million. raw numbers indeed. we are catching up!

Who precisely are “we?” Are you referring to “those folks [who] rely on feelings and assumptions. which is why there is great contradictions between them and the result: tens of thousands of sects!” (Post 143)

So you are grouping yourself in with these people who “rely on feelings and assumptions” to determine their non-affiliation and believe this is a good thing that “your” numbers are “catching up?” So having these contradictions is a positive development in your view?

On the one hand, you were denigrating the Church for teaching that it is authoritative in these matters but, on the other, decrying those who rely on feelings and assumptions that lead to contradictions.

The only ground left to you is that you alone have the authority to make determinations about the nature of God and any attending beliefs. Why didn’t you just come out and state that to begin with?

 

[Peter_Plato]

my friend, none of the gospels were written by an apostle. these gospels developed over time, changing as they went along. your scholars said that. not me:
The Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,[28] summarized by Raymond E. Brown as follows:[29]

1. 
   ]An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
   *]A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
   *]The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85-90AD
   
   .
   
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_john#Authorship

1. 
   This “stages” view of Brown’s is consistent with Johanine authorship since the 1) personal experience would have been John’s, the 2) structured literary creation was, in fact, John’s (”by the evangelist”) and the 3) final harmony could also have been done by John or under his supervision. Where does Brown’s view support your contention that it was not essentially written by the Apostle?
   
   What about Matthew?
   
   Mark was a protege of Peter and Luke was close to Paul. How do these argue against Apostolic authority behind the Gospels?
   

   i agree with historians who admit that were was a man referred to as ‘jesus’ today who suffered, died, and served as an inspiration for the development of christianity. but none of these historians would confirm that such a man came back from the dead. sorry.

   You agree with historians that support your own views. There are historians on both sides.
   
   If the Gospels are so dubious, why even accept that Jesus existed? By picking and choosing facts?
   
   I never could understand how someone with a proper view of the nature of God (Creator of the universe ex nihilo) could doubt that God has the power to raise Jesus from the dead. It seems inconsistent to say, “I believe in God (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent) who could create the universe, but I don’t believe he could raise someone from the dead.”

 

[sophion]

Note that I did not say anything about the Gospels, I referred to the “story” of the Apostles which is the core of the authoritative teaching that forms the creed and magisterial tradition of the Church. The Scriptures rely upon the authority of the Church for the determination of their authenticity.

Your choice of Brown as a “Catholic” scholar to support your claim is somewhat less than honest or perhaps shows a lack of knowledge of the issues on your part because Brown does not hold faithful to the Church’s teaching on Scriptural inerrancy.

“Brown remains controversial among traditionalist Catholics because of their claim that he denied the inerrancy of the whole of Scripture and cast doubt on the historical accuracy of numerous articles of the Catholic faith.” (From the Wikipedia article on Brown).

Brown’s views were cherry picked by you as rather feeble evidence in your support.

Historical accuracy? Isnt it the modern catholic stance that the bible should not be taken as historically accurate???

And lack of knowledge? Then prove it otherwise instead of just complaining. Show me a scholarly research stressing scriptural literal inerrancy. That what you have in your book is exactly what the original author had written. Good luck.

otherwise, I admire Fr. Brown for his professional honesty.

Who precisely are “we?” Are you referring to “those folks [who] rely on feelings and assumptions. which is why there is great contradictions between them and the result: tens of thousands of sects!” (Post 143)

we the “nones”. no need to go into detail or the mod may warn us “discuss the topic, not each other”.

 

[sophion]

This “stages” view of Brown’s is consistent with Johanine authorship since the 1) personal experience would have been John’s, the 2) structured literary creation was, in fact, John’s (”by the evangelist”) and the 3) final harmony could also have been done by John or under his supervision. Where does Brown’s view support your contention that it was not essentially written by the Apostle?

What about Matthew?

Mark was a protege of Peter and Luke was close to Paul. How do these argue against Apostolic authority behind the Gospels?

n view of this complex and multi-layered history it is meaningless to speak of a single “author” of John

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_john#Authorship

what finally turned me off from the bible:

*“For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today’s bible.”

"Mr Ehrman was a born again Bible-believing Evangelical until he read the original Greek texts and noticed some discrepancies.

The Bible we now use can’t be the inerrant word of God, he says, since what we have are the sometimes mistaken words copied by fallible scribes." *

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7651105.stm

and many such reports and findings. your bible underwent alterations in its transmission process. IT CANNOT BE TRUSTED.

and the idea that the message is enerrant and not the text makes even less sense. see the text leads you all to see different messages.

i’m sorry.

You agree with historians that support your own views. There are historians on both sides.

really there are neutral historians who declared jesus performed miracles? please show me.

If the Gospels are so dubious, why even accept that Jesus existed? By picking and choosing facts?

I never could understand how someone with a proper view of the nature of God (Creator of the universe ex nihilo) could doubt that God has the power to raise Jesus from the dead. It seems inconsistent to say, “I believe in God (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent) who could create the universe, but I don’t believe he could raise someone from the dead.”

of course he could. but did he? thats the matter of dispute.

thats why it is essential that if God really wants us to behave in certain ways, then he would have spoken to all of us already. DIRECTLY. not through hear-say or ‘feelings’.

 

[Gorgias]

Historical accuracy? Isnt it the modern catholic stance that the bible should not be taken as historically accurate???

No. The Catholic stance is that not everything in the Bible is a historical record, and therefore, one cannot naively assert that everything in the Bible is historically accurate.

And lack of knowledge? Then prove it otherwise instead of just complaining. Show me a scholarly research stressing scriptural literal inerrancy. That what you have in your book is exactly what the original author had written. Good luck.

You need to define your terms more precisely. “Inerrant” doesn’t mean what you’re trying to make it mean. It doesn’t mean “exactly what the original author had written” or even “scriptural literal inerrancy” (by which I take you to mean that every word of scripture, at a literal level, must be seen as inerrant). Rather, it means that God had a plan in mind to reveal the truths of salvation. Inerrancy, then, simply means that God accomplished what He set out to do, without error.

In other words, you’re setting up straw men. If you want to debate the truth of Catholic claims, you’re going to have to address Catholic claims, not constructions of your own making…

 

[Gorgias]

n view of this complex and multi-layered history it is meaningless to speak of a single “author” of John

And? Your problem with this is what, exactly? It doesn’t matter who put words to paper, or who first expressed his ideas and had them taken up as oral tradition. The truth of Scripture doesn’t depend on the human author, but on the divine author. The point you’re trying to make here seems irrelevant to this discussion…

“For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God,”

These, then, aren’t Catholics. Take out “unaltered”, and we can have a talk about Catholic teaching. The quote you’re citing, though, is talking about fundamentalist Christians, not Catholics. You can’t reasonably hold us to their views.

"Mr Ehrman was a born again Bible-believing Evangelical until he read the original Greek texts and noticed some discrepancies.

See? They’re not talking about Catholics, but Evangelicals. Is your point that you want us to tell you that literalistic approaches to the whole of the Bible are indefensible? Fine; they are. But you aren’t talking about Catholic teaching anymore.

and many such reports and findings. your bible underwent alterations in its transmission process. IT CANNOT BE TRUSTED.

and if the Church only went by a certain translation – for example, the KJV – then your point would have merit. However, the Church doesn’t do that. It draws its doctrines from ancient sources.

You’re mistaking the value of translated literature. Have you ever read a book in translation and in the original? Then you’ve noticed where the translator makes certain interpretive decisions. The point of translating a book isn’t to replace the original, but to make it more accessible. Sects that look only on the Bible in their vernacular tend to generate doctrinal problems, as they look at Scripture from a perspective that isn’t the perspective of the original authors. That’s not the approach of the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, yet again you’ve set up a straw man and are arguing against it. We’re not advocating the stances that you’re tilting against…

and the idea that the message is enerrant and not the text makes even less sense. see the text leads you all to see different messages.

Given my assertions above, I’d be interested to see how you nuance this claim. Just to be plain: my claim is that the message of salvation history is inerrant; moreover, this claim doesn’t require us to believe that the message is solely to be found in any one given translation (regardless how good that translation may be).

i’m sorry.

You should be. You’re putting words in our mouths and trying to argue against them. (LOL – just kidding!)

thats why it is essential that if God really wants us to behave in certain ways, then he would have spoken to all of us already. DIRECTLY. not through hear-say or ‘feelings’.

Why does he need individual messages, if he’s already communicated His message in Scripture? (Or are we looping around to the beginning, again?)

 

[sophion]

No. The Catholic stance is that not everything in the Bible is a historical record, and therefore, one cannot naively assert that everything in the Bible is historically accurate.

religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm

Limited inerrancy: Other Catholics teach a more recent concept: that the Bible is without error in certain matters such as faith, morals and the criteria for salvation. However, the Bible contains errors when describing other matters, such as scientific observations and historical events. This belief had its origins in the church with the writings of Richard Simon (1638 - 1712) who rejected Moses as author of the Pentateuch. He partly inspired the literary-criticism method of analyzing biblical passages which became influential among some 19th century Christians.

No inerrancy: Still other Catholic theologians and scholars have deviated entirely from the church’s official teaching. They agree with liberal Protestants in rejecting the inerrancy of the Bible. They interpret it as containing much legend, myth, historical and scientific inaccuracies, religious propaganda, etc. Of these intellectuals, Dominic Crossan is one of the most popular Catholic writers among the general public.

theologians, scholars and news reports agree:
your bible has errors. period.

Why does he need individual messages, if he’s already communicated His message in Scripture? (Or are we looping around to the beginning, again?)

Jeremiah 8:8
How do you say: We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Indeed the lying pen of the scribes hath wrought falsehood.

sorry but even the bible itself declares that it is unreliable.
if god wants us to do something, whats holding him from telling us directly?

BUT WE ARE REALLY ON OUR OWN.
God is just out there watching and not intervening, ever.
religions- they are all man made stuff.

 

[Gorgias]

Limited inerrancy: Other Catholics teach a more recent concept: that the Bible is without error in certain matters such as faith, morals and the criteria for salvation. However, the Bible contains errors when describing other matters, such as scientific observations and historical events. This belief had its origins in the church with the writings of Richard Simon (1638 - 1712) who rejected Moses as author of the Pentateuch. He partly inspired the literary-criticism method of analyzing biblical passages which became influential among some 19th century Christians.

Yes… and this is what I just told you: Catholic teaching does not assert that the entirety of the Bible is historically inerrant.

No inerrancy: Still other Catholic theologians and scholars have deviated entirely from the church’s official teaching.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! “deviated entirely from the church’s official teaching”. See? You can’t prove your mistaken notions of what the Church teaches by pointing to sources that themselves admit that they’re not representing Church teachings! :doh2:

Of these intellectuals, Dominic Crossan is one of the most popular Catholic writers among the general public.

Dominic Crossan is a former Catholic priest. If you want to pick anyone who explains the viewpoint of a group… never pick someone who abandoned a leadership role within that group.

theologians, scholars and news reports agree:
your bible has errors. period.

Two thoughts: first of all, “theologians, scholars and news reports” do not define Catholic teaching. The Magisterium – the teaching authority of the Church, exercised by the pope and bishops – does define Catholic teaching. You can’t point to a story written by a non-Catholic group and assert that it is the final word on Catholic teaching. Sorry. :nope: Second: we’ve discussed the notion of ‘errors’ already. Do you, by chance, toss out ancient historical accounts because they have errors?

sorry but hear-say is just unreliable.

What’s your definition of ‘hearsay’, then? I think you’re using it in a way that doesn’t hold water…

 

[sophion]

Yes… and this is what I just told you: Catholic teaching does not assert that the entirety of the Bible is historically inerrant.

Gorgias: “The Catholic stance is that not everything in the Bible is a historical record”

vs

Catholic Theologians: “However, the Bible contains errors when describing other matters, such as scientific observations and historical events”

of course everyone knows not everything in the bible was meant to be historical- like the book of proverbs. however the thologians are clear when it comes to historical events the bible contains errors.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias: “The Catholic stance is that not everything in the Bible is a historical record”

vs

Catholic Theologians: “However, the Bible contains errors when describing other matters, such as scientific observations and historical events”

of course everyone knows not everything in the bible was meant to be historical- like the book of proverbs. however the thologians are clear when it comes to historical events the bible contains errors.

Ahh… I see why we’re missing each other. OK – yes, not only is it the case that not everything is historical, there are places where the ‘history’ is problematic. You’re correct.

However, this isn’t sufficient reason to discard the Bible. That’s because the Bible wasn’t meant to be a history book – it was meant to be God’s revelation to humanity regarding salvation. Therefore, in its communication of salvation, it’s inerrant.

Yet, how can I argue inerrancy if there are errors elsewhere? Easy: we’re not making the claim that God had people transcribe the Bible word-for-word. Rather, the Catholic view of inspiration is that God allowed fallible humans to write the Bible. This means that, necessarily, they used their own knowledge and perspective in their writings. In other words, the part that God wanted to communicate, we believe, got communicated. Where there are ‘errors’, they are the errors of the human authors. No problems.

If my words made you think that I was defending literal inerrancy in all but non-historical accounts, then that’s not accurate. (However, since I was explicitly saying “no literal inerrancy”, I can’t imagine where you got that from… )

 

[sophion]

^ I am aware of that argument, Gorgias.
I held to that kind of thinking too for a while. Eventually i realized: if there are sure errors in some parts of the bible, how can we be sure that the so called 'matters of faith and ‘morals’ have not been unafected? already some morals in the bible were disturbing like that massacre of infants.

so i’ve let it go. god knows i did my best.
if god wants something from me, i’m sure he wont hesitate to tell me.
until then live life to the best of your ability. be a good person and love.

 

[Gorgias]

^ I am aware of that argument, Gorgias.
I held to that kind of thinking too for a while. Eventually i realized: if there are sure errors in some parts of the bible, how can we be sure that the so called 'matters of faith and ‘morals’ have not been unafected?

Well, I hear what you’re saying… but I’m surprised to discover that this is your perspective, sophion! All along you’ve been saying “no feelings!” and “no hearsay!” … and yet, when it comes to your outlook on the Bible, you’re not acting on direct facts – rather, you’re giving in to doubts and feelings! surprising…

already some morals in the bible were disturbing like that massacre of infants.

You’re talking about an Old Testament narrative, not the “massacre of the innocents” found in the New Testament?

It doesn’t sit well with me that some say, “God gave them life, and so he has the right to take it away”. But, I think that there are better, more fruitful approaches to understanding those texts. Which one are you addressing here?

if god wants something from me, i’m sure he wont hesitate to tell me.

Agreed. Yet, if God wants something from you, why is it that you believe that you, personally, should dictate the mode of that communication? Why is it that you hold certain modes at arms’ length, and disallow God to use them as the means to communicate with you?

until then live life to the best of your ability. be a good person and love.

Always a good starting point…

 

[Blessed_4]

Why cant God just communicate with us directly?

I was born and raised in the Catholic Church. I have since left the “church” and found my faith in Jesus Christ. That being said, I was raised thinking that God didn’t directly communicate with us, that is why we need to confess our sins to a priest and we are forgiven. I wanted to know exactly what you are questioning. In studying the Bible, I have learned many things…one of which is that God hears you and wants for you to come to Him with any problems, triumphs, etc. God wants you to communicate, not so that He will keep everything to Himself or only answer you through people who have a “gift” to communicate with Him. The fact is, we all have a gift to communicate with God, it is simply His love for us that we are able to hear Him. You just have to ask. I never knew to ask God, I just thought He didn’t want to answer me. It isn’t about Him appearing to you in a form of something, it is about simply opening your heart and listening. Pray to God with everything…1 Thessalonians 5:18 ► “In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you”. Go to Him with all of your needs and wants and never forget that He will answer you in His terms, for His will and His glory. I think it is wonderful that you believe in God…please don’t worry about finding the right religion (believe me, they are all flawed…after all, they were all started by humans). Concentrate on your relationship with our Savior and the rest will all fall into place. God’s blessings, my sister in Christ.