Why cant God just communicate with us directly?

[sophion]

I believe faith comes by reading the Bible.

i’ve read the bible cover to cover twice.
it was the opposite for me.
there are parts in it (especially in the old testament) that just contradicts the idea of a loving god. made me question my faith.

 

[dailey]

He is. . .but nobody’s listening!

He appears to you evertime you go to Mass and receive Jesus in the Most Holy Eucharist but because you can’t physically see Him, He is probably speaking to you the way He spoke to Thomas. Selective hearing will not hear God only the eyes to your heart will.

How many signs does He have to give this faithless generation?

Very true.

Blessed are those who believe without seeing.

 

[InJesusItrust]

i’ve read the bible cover to cover twice.
it was the opposite for me.
there are parts in it (especially in the old testament) that just contradicts the idea of a loving god. made me question my faith.

Then did you research about it? Is Jesus some new age hippie who has nothing to do with the God of the OT, or is He the Messiah preaching repentance like the prophets of old?

The OT makes it even more credible IMO, like the Todah, Passover and Eucharist; or the proverbs and psalms. If this is all a lie, whoever did it must have been a mastermind.

 

[sophion]

Then did you research about it?

I have. Even raised the issue here many times and nobody could explain it except the tired old excuse: “god works in mysterious ways”, “god can do whatever he likes!”, “its not literal it didnt really happen!”

here try it:
*
1 Samuel 15
2 This is what the Lord of Heaven’s Armies has declared: I have decided to settle accounts with the nation of Amalek for opposing Israel when they came from Egypt. 3 Now go and completely destroy[a] the entire Amalekite nation—men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys.”*

babies murdered for what happened a hundred years before. thats what i call senseless violence.

The OT makes it even more credible IMO, like the Todah, Passover and Eucharist; or the proverbs and psalms. If this is all a lie, whoever did it must have been a mastermind.

proverbs is nice but its not really that impressive. the modern collection of wise sayings are far better.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This raises a big question mark, then, for all those who have heard of Christianity from the outside, which is indeed necessary – from their parents, their teachers, fellow Christians, through being evangelized, through having a Bible placed in their hands – and yet do not accept it. Grace never translates, for them, into a conscious understanding of the need for faith. They are also told – inevitably, through others that claim authority in the matter – that they must have faith. Yet having faith in the Christian God may be no more compelling to them than having faith in Allah, or in the Book of Mormon. They feel no inner compulsion to believe it, or to put their faith and trust in it.

Knowledge of grace does not automatically translate into cooperation with it. The difference between us and plants is that plants naturally convert sunlight into energy. Human beings, on the other hand, are agents of change by volitional and deliberate acts of the will. Even believing or assenting to an idea is not the same as integrating that “idea” into choices and action. I could believe global warming is occurring but that knowledge will not make a difference in my actions until a series of choices are made to act on it.

According to Catholic doctrine, we are predisposed against grace by original sin so to overcome that requires willful and determined (i.e., faithful) cooperation with grace. Knowing about it is not good enough. Knowledge could be helpful and right knowledge certainly is, if it is accompanied by a ready will.

Intellectual reasoning could aid in the promptings of faith – for example, reason telling you that the Bible is of more historicity than the Book of Mormon, and that the Gospel accounts seem convincing – yet you’ve pointed out (rightly, it seems) that intellect alone is not reliable, since it is necessarily human and fallible.

Knowledge and reasoning are tools, but like all tools they can be counterproductive. A shovel is great for digging a garden, but it takes some practice to become adept at using it. A shovel can also be used as a blunt instrument for murder and to hide the victim afterwards. The value of a tool lies in its use, not misuse. Reason is often used to rationalize away inction and avoidance of truth.

So it seems what the difference of opinion boils down to, is that Neoplatonist is saying, “how does one know that faith is required, if God does not communicate with us directly?” And you seem to be saying, “knowledge of the need for faith is innate – the way God made us – and is triggered through the promptings of grace.”

Again, this ultimately raises the question of whether there is such thing as an honest non-Christian or an honest atheist – for example, one who receives grace as a plant receives sunlight, and unfolds the goodness within, without necessarily being aware of even the need for faith and trust that the Christian God exists, or that Christianity is true.

Certainly there could be honest non-Christians, but ultimately it comes down to some kind of disconnection from the action of grace along with a disorder in their rational faculty. Original sin plays a role here. Since original sin is a condition that we find ourselves in (a foggy intellect being one aspect), our responsibility would be to carefully, honestly, reflectively and with no pretense about our own abilities, search for the truth under the guidance of grace to the best of our abilities, with the understanding that folly frequently shows up as a result of a “crippled” reasoning faculty.

An atheistic position would, on the face of it, seem problematic because an atheist denies a possibility that s/he cannot find adequate warrant to accept but does not have sufficient warrant to deny. There appears to be a predisposition to deny God, at work in an atheist; a denial without warrant that they themselves ought to be skeptical about. Why they are so predisposed could be very enlightening if they pursued the underlying reasons.

This seems to be the Gandhi dilemma, at bottom. Gandhi read the Gospels cover to cover and said, “I admire Christ”, but never felt compelled to convert to Christianity (other Indians have). Was it invincible ignorance? A mere intellectual error? Even calling it an intellectual error would be a paradox, however, because the Christian maintains that intellect alone cannot get the job done; only faith can.

Perhaps Gandhi was providentially called to be a leader (Moses like) for the hundreds of millions of Hindu religious and could not do that had he converted to Christianity.

 

[Peter_Plato]

i’ve read the bible cover to cover twice.
it was the opposite for me.
there are parts in it (especially in the old testament) that just contradicts the idea of a loving god. made me question my faith.

It made me question my faith as well, but I chose to look into it more deeply. Your choice seems to have been to abdicate.

We could get into this in another thread, but if looked at from the point of view of a cosmic surgeon, cancer (a metaphor for the proliferation and intensity of evil) sometimes requires removal of a body part.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Okay, but where do the dead go, if not straight to God to be judged? Who better can judge all? If God commands it we must keep in mind His mercy too. Rain falls on wicked and righteous alike, but the righteous prosper in the end.

Here is what Jesus says in the NT:

Luke 13:

1 And there were present, at that very time, some that told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.

2 And he answering, said to them: Think you that these Galileans were sinners above all the men of Galilee, because they suffered such things?

3 I say to you, No: but unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish.

4 Or those eighteen upon whom the tower fell in Siloe, and slew them: think you, that they also were debtors above all the men that dwell in Jerusalem?

5 I tell you: No: but unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish.

Did God spare His saints martyrdom?

 

[sophion]

It made me question my faith as well, but I chose to look into it more deeply. Your choice seems to have been to abdicate.

no it took me years and many other factors.

We could get into this in another thread, but if looked at from the point of view of a cosmic surgeon, cancer (a metaphor for the proliferation and intensity of evil) sometimes requires removal of a body part.

agree. lets leave it at that.

 

[sophion]

Okay, but where do the dead go, if not straight to God to be judged? Who better can judge all? If God commands it we must keep in mind His mercy too. Rain falls on wicked and righteous alike, but the righteous prosper in the end.

if those people were killed by natural disasters then there is no morality problems. but to have people massacre them in cold blood?

NO THE RIGHTEOUS DONT KILL BABIES.

now you understand why. lets leave it at that for now

 

[onenow1]

Then did you research about it? Is Jesus some new age hippie who has nothing to do with the God of the OT, or is He the Messiah preaching repentance like the prophets of old?

The OT makes it even more credible IMO, like the Todah, Passover and Eucharist; or the proverbs and psalms. If this is all a lie, whoever did it must have been a mastermind.

Hi I. J. I. T.

1 Chronicles 28​

2 Then King David rose to his feet and said: "Hear me, my brethren and my people. I had it in my heart to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and for the footstool of our God; and I made preparations for building.
3 But God said to me, `You may not build a house for my name, for you are a warrior and have shed blood.’

Read more: ewtn.com/ewtn/bible/search_bible.asp#ixzz2BjwtnkxX

 

[InJesusItrust]

I have. Even raised the issue here many times and nobody could explain it except the tired old excuse: “god works in mysterious ways”, “god can do whatever he likes!”, “its not literal it didnt really happen!”

here try it:
*
1 Samuel 15
2 This is what the Lord of Heaven’s Armies has declared: I have decided to settle accounts with the nation of Amalek for opposing Israel when they came from Egypt*. 3 Now go and completely destroy[a] the entire Amalekite nation—men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys.”

babies murdered for what happened a hundred years before. thats what i call senseless violence.

proverbs is nice but its not really that impressive. the modern collection of wise sayings are far better.

It is not how nice they sound, but how much they sound like the NT.

 

[Neoplatonist]

Ack! I can’t believe I used deism and theism backward. Obviously not enough coffee circulating in the brain yet to prevent a short circuit!

 

[Portofino]

Now what prompted me to believe that God existed in the first place that I wanted to believe in Him? Was that not a kind of faith?

I respect that invocation of faith, which is indeed paradoxical in the sense that some modicum of faith or understanding would have to be present, for you to have had the desire and the intention. It is similar to the paradox of the line (from the gospels): “Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, ‘I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!’”

There is also the phenomenon of “faith seeking understanding,” and yet there has to be some modicum of understanding (or of faith) that gave you the wherewithal to have sought faith, to begin with.

It’s similar to accepting the authority of the Church. It has to make sense to you on some level, else you would have no criteria for whom to give your obedience towards (or whom to put your trust in). Without some understanding, it would be an arbitrary choice.

 

[WmJackP]

One would think that if God wanted to say something then he would be less opaque and more direct in scripture.

And when prayer is considered, there is no evidence that it is either efficacious or achieves anything substantively different than other mental states.

And when one claims to have had direct conversations with God of a vivid or concrete nature, that is usually taken as evidence of a serious illness.

So, one really has to question whether any type of conversation with god is authentic.

 

[Neoplatonist]

Very true.

Blessed are those who believe without seeing.

Now wait a minute. If he “appears” to you, then you aren’t “believing without seeing.” It is exactly because he doesn’t appear that we must believe.

(If he actually appeared to me every time I went to Mass, I obviously wouldn’t be wrestling with this question to start with.)

 

[sophion]

One would think that if God wanted to say something then he would be less opaque and more direct in scripture.

i know. a holy book doesnt have to be so obscure…just look at the KORAN! its so clear that you can only count the number of islamic sects in one hand!

 

[Neoplatonist]

One would think that if God wanted to say something then he would be less opaque and more direct in scripture.

And when prayer is considered, there is no evidence that it is either efficacious or achieves anything substantively different than other mental states.

And when one claims to have had direct conversations with God of a vivid or concrete nature, that is usually taken as evidence of a serious illness.

So, one really has to question whether any type of conversation with god is authentic.

1. True, if as many of my students were confused, disbelieving, or disoriented, I would be fired at something approaching the speed of sound.
2. There is, however, a meaningful distinction regarding mental illness. In this case we must look at the extent to which the person’s purported experience is beneficial to them and those around them or harmful. This is fundamental to the conception of illness in general and to mental illness in particular. It is more than an accidental feature that some people are made into examples which we wish we were more like, and that we admire, in contrast to someone who believes, for instance, that their cat told them to kill all of [insert group here].

 

[Peter_Plato]

i know. a holy book doesnt have to be so obscure…just look at the KORAN! its so clear that you can only count the number of islamic sects in one hand!

Why are you not a Muslim, then, if clarity is the only relevant factor?

 

[sophion]

Why are you not a Muslim, then, if clarity is the only relevant factor?

well their book might be clearer, but its still fake.

if only your bible is clear as well. you wouldnt have all that much problem about heresy! less cause for christians to kill each other over religious disputes. too bad.

you know another reason why churches are emptying because more and more christians are getting tired about that “we are correct, you wrong” disputes among christians.

 

[DCNBILL]

i’ve read the bible cover to cover twice.
it was the opposite for me.
there are parts in it (especially in the old testament) that just contradicts the idea of a loving god. made me question my faith.

If one takes the proper perspective when reading the Bible then it makes a bit more sense. The Old Testament (Hebrew Scripture) is the story of a people searching to understand their God. The New Testament is the story of God responding to His creation.

Using the proper perspective gives light to that which would be hidden otherwise.

Note that Scripture scholars who have studied the bible for the majority of their lives do not pretend to be fully understanding of everything revealed in the Bible. It is the revelation of God after all and that is not something easy, for a creature to understand the Creator.