Why cant God just communicate with us directly?

[Peter_Plato]

1. True, if as many of my students were confused, disbelieving, or disoriented, I would be fired at something approaching the speed of sound.

Paradoxically, that is the nature of true light, it does reveal all the confusion, disbelief and disorientation that is present. (A light that shines in the darkness.) The question is, does the teacher (and by extension, the students) then patiently and persistently work through all of the mire to resolve the confusion, disbelief and disorientation or do they just abandon the quest for the sake of something less important and more easily resolvable?

It might be a mediocre teacher who avoids problematic issues and sticks to topics that are “easy” to address for the sake of tenure.

It may be an overwhelmingly daunting task to turn on the light to see all the rats, cockroaches and cobwebs that are revealed. Some might choose, for the sake of keeping up appearances, to leave the light off and subsist in nocturnal “comfort” so long as things continue to appear safe. When the situation becomes less than tolerable, then there is always the possibility of appeal to the problem of evil. Alas, why didn’t God do something about it when it was dark and we couldn’t see what was going on? Obviously, we cannot be blamed for what was hidden from view!

1. 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].

Certainly, looking at only one side of the results (and portraying it in as ludicrous a way as possible, by invoking a speaking cat) provides a convenient rationalization for a one sided determination.

If the Israelites actually invoked a talking cat as their instigation for warfare, you would have a case, but they didn’t.

God’s problem, it would seem, is the same quandary that Jonah faced. Not calling on the Israelites to surgically remove evil cultures would then leave him susceptible to a criticism for being negligent and allowing evil to dominate, but actually undertaking the nasty business of curtailing evil then leaves him open to criticism for using too heavy a hand. Arm chair critique has the convenience of remaining distant and unbloodied while retaining the appearance of innocence.

The assumption in OT critique is that this could not have been God because a good God would not have commanded such a thing or concludes to God is a moral monster for allowing it. However, logically speaking, it is possible that evil could have been so ingrained and so problematic that the only way to stop it was by removal. Maintaining, consistently, that an all-knowing and all-good God commanded the action, then, without access to all of the morally relevant factors for deliberation, we are not in a position to say God should not have commanded it. It is only when a presumption that it was not God, or at least not an all-knowing or all-good God, that commanded it, does the critique hold.

When by insistence we allow that the command actually did come from God, then the implication is that there must have been great evil present that jeopardized the very continuance of good (analogous to Nazi victory in WWII) in order for God to call for such an action. It certainly has not been a recurring theme since. Keep in mind that we, as humans, have a bias for other humans and are not likely to see these people as morally beyond reach.

If down through the history of mankind had there been a verifiable, habitual and consistent call by God for the extermination of groups of people for no reason other than it is the will of God, then we would have a case, but since the stated justification for these acts was the overwhelming preponderance and abetting of evil, we ought not be so quick to cast judgement in human favor. Nazi atrocities were, after all, committed by human beings, so complete moral degeneracy of human beings is a possibility. How susceptible humans are to such a state is an important consideration.

I am not saying problems with the narratives are completely resolved here, they definitely are not. They are problematic precisely because they are contrary to everything else we know about God.

I am saying that the fleeting references to problematic OT narratives in the context of this thread have been made as appeals to emotion and not as salient points.

 

[sophion]

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.

actually both is applicable to both. That the OT is also a story of God responding to His creation. And that the NT is story of a people (the christians) searching to understand their God

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

I doubt it. There are just too many easy distractions so that people relegate the important, but confounding, issues further down the heap. Full churches are not necessarily a sign that more people are faithful. People are like sheep in many respects. They tend to follow perceived leaders. After WWII there was a huge rise in Church attendance because people bore the full brunt of the fallout from the consequences of human leadership and authority. This generation has forgotten that lesson, so humanism is on the rise, reinforced by increased technical expertise that has made life “easy” for many.

I could make mention of your cocky self-confidence, but I suspect it will remedy itself in time.

 

[DCNBILL]

actually both is applicable to both. That the OT is also a story of God responding to His creation. And that the NT is story of a people (the christians) searching to understand their God

I admit that the study of Scripture is not an easy endeavor, I would reccomend the use of a good commentary along with ones reading or participation in a intensive Scripture course. It is good that you are interested in such, keep up the search!

 

[Peter_Plato]

You wrote a few posts back that what matters is not knowledge of God – rather, you likened the person receiving grace to a plant receiving sunlight, even if it does not have knowledge of sunlight – and that what was important was an unfolding of the goodness that was within oneself; a state of being, not a state of knowledge.

This seemed at least compatible with an individual who is spiritual, but not religious; or an individual who is non-religious, but a good person.

In more recent posts, however, you introduced the element of faith as a requirement, which seems --assuming you weren’t shifting your position – to clarify that saying “knowledge is not necessary” is not the same as saying “conscious awareness of God and of the necessity for faith” is not necessary.

You seemed to imply that the need for faith is an awareness that should come from *within *, based on the help of grace.

It dawned on me that another way to approach this matter is by analogy to a piano. The function of a piano depends upon two things: 1) proper design and construction and 2) proper tuning. Maintaining the well-built piano is essential for allowing the pianist to compose and play beautiful music.

Applying this to a human being, the proper formation of the virtues (in the Aristotelian sense of proper upbringing and training) is required for a person to perform well as a human being, but the person, like the piano, requires maintenance in terms of proper tuning. In a sense, this tuning is self-monitored by something like conscience or superego.

To this point, God could be quite satisfied with his creation and could sit back and enjoy the “music,” (the actions) that could potentially come out of this human instrument. The problem, though, like the piano sitting unattended on a stage, there is no one to play it to make the music. God could simply have the human instrument play a predetermined score, as a player piano does, but let us suppose he is not content with that.

Enter free agency: the capacity or will to initiate novel activity, to use the human instrument to devise novel and compelling improvisations. God may not be content with simply listening to his students play predetermined scores, but is insistent that his students show the creative imagination of Mozart, Bach or Beethoven and that is possible only if he gives them the creative license (free will) to go off in uncharted directions.

Certainly this “expectation” on God’s part is fraught with possible problems, since not exerting complete control might result in unbearable results, but he has determined that possibility to be “worth” the risk, i.e., that the sublime success of a Mozart or Bach is worth the “audition” of many less successful composers of novelty.

All this presumes that human free agents are basically “in tune” with their natural abilities and that the auto-tuning feature of conscience is minimally functional. There would be no need for radical intervention on God’s part and he would be content with letting things “play out” on a completely “natural” level.

The problem, it seems to me, is when the human free will factor becomes systemically “bad.” When the society of composers begin to influence each other toward abysmal creations and the society itself loses touch with a proper sense of “the musical.” What then?

Perhaps, at this point, supernatural intervention on God’s part becomes necessary to “straighten out” or reform what has become endemic to the musical culture.

Given this preamble, let’s address the point of Neoplatonist below.

It kind of brings us full circle with the argument of Neoplatonist - “why doesn’t God communicate with us more directly?” But you seem to be maintaining that there is something within us that does recognize the need for faith, or that God does communicate with us (for example, through innate ideas, or a kind of inspiration). Awareness of is still “knowledge of,” even if it does not come through reasoning (the Gnostics, for example, did not believe in gnosis through reasoning, but through awareness of the God within); in this sense, then, knowledge is necessary.

It seems to me that Neoplatonist has completely misread the intention of God in his question. Given that human instruments have appropriate natural virtues, a self-tuning mechanism (conscience) and the allowance for free will to demonstrate sublime creativity in action, why would God need to, additionally, “communicate with us directly?”

What God is waiting for is for us to use his endowments to “love” creatively. That is his will for us. To wait in expectation of “direct communication” is to assume that things are so radically wrong that God must intervene supernaturally, but isn’t that a determination that only God should make? Our job is to do our best with what we have, not attempt to back-seat drive for the Creator by assuming some supernatural communication is required. :doh2:

The Church’s take on the sacraments (channels of grace) and prayer is that these are the ordinary means of “keeping in tune,” a strategy of regular maintenance on our “human instruments.” No out of the ordinary intervention is necessary until the situation becomes extraordinarily out of the ordinary, and that we should leave to God to decide.

 

[Neoplatonist]

It dawned on me that another way to approach this matter is by analogy to a piano. The function of a piano depends upon two things: 1) proper design and construction and 2) proper tuning. Maintaining the well-built piano is essential for allowing the pianist to compose and play beautiful music.

Applying this to a human being, the proper formation of the virtues (in the Aristotelian sense of proper upbringing and training) is required for a person to perform well as a human being, but the person, like the piano, requires maintenance in terms of proper tuning. In a sense, this tuning is self-monitored by something like conscience or superego.

To this point, God could be quite satisfied with his creation and could sit back and enjoy the “music,” (the actions) that could potentially come out of this human instrument. The problem, though, like the piano sitting unattended on a stage, there is no one to play it to make the music. God could simply have the human instrument play a predetermined score, as a player piano does, but let us suppose he is not content with that.

Enter free agency: the capacity or will to initiate novel activity, to use the human instrument to devise novel and compelling improvisations. God may not be content with simply listening to his students play predetermined scores, but is insistent that his students show the creative imagination of Mozart, Bach or Beethoven and that is possible only if he gives them the creative license (free will) to go off in uncharted directions.

Certainly this “expectation” on God’s part is fraught with possible problems, since not exerting complete control might result in unbearable results, but he has determined that possibility to be “worth” the risk, i.e., that the sublime success of a Mozart or Bach is worth the “audition” of many less successful composers of novelty.

All this presumes that human free agents are basically “in tune” with their natural abilities and that the auto-tuning feature of conscience is minimally functional. There would be no need for radical intervention on God’s part and he would be content with letting things “play out” on a completely “natural” level.

The problem, it seems to me, is when the human free will factor becomes systemically “bad.” When the society of composers begin to influence each other toward abysmal creations and the society itself loses touch with a proper sense of “the musical.” What then?

Perhaps, at this point, supernatural intervention on God’s part becomes necessary to “straighten out” or reform what has become endemic to the musical culture.

Given this preamble, let’s address the point of Neoplatonist below.

It seems to me that Neoplatonist has completely misread the intention of God in his question. Given that human instruments have appropriate natural virtues, a self-tuning mechanism (conscience) and the allowance for free will to demonstrate sublime creativity in action, why would God need to, additionally, “communicate with us directly?”

What God is waiting for is for us to use his endowments to “love” creatively. That is his will for us. To wait in expectation of “direct communication” is to assume that things are so radically wrong that God must intervene supernaturally, but isn’t that a determination that only God should make? Our job is to do our best with what we have, not attempt to back-seat drive for the Creator by assuming some supernatural communication is required. :doh2:

The Church’s take on the sacraments (channels of grace) and prayer is that these are the ordinary means of “keeping in tune,” a strategy of regular maintenance on our “human instruments.” No out of the ordinary intervention is necessary until the situation becomes extraordinarily out of the ordinary, and that we should leave to God to decide.

If we’re set with the requisite virtues and all that, then it strikes me as a wasteful redundancy for God to bother sending his son to teach us. You just said he doesn’t need to communicate with us. ?]

Similarly, if he intends to remain hidden to help our trust and so on, why so much effort to tell us all the ways we should call on Him, and all the ways He will respond? While a separate critique in its own right, this also, then, falls prey to the same point I made just a minute ago, in that it seems an absurd redundancy.

Again, your model also seems to ignore the infinite suffering which hangs over us as a consequence of not making the right choices. He does not intervene in order to preserve our freedom, but if we choose wrong. Well, here’s your order of "lake of fire, with a side of “wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

Besides, it doesn’t have to be “necessary” in my argument. He said we would receive things we asked for. Did He mean that or not? Or did he only mean that, as long as what we ask for does not include “more clarity”?

 

[GregBussey]

1. “You are not seeking me enough. YOU DESERVE TO DIE”
2. “My power is infinite. IT IS NOTHING TO JOKE ABOUT”
3. “I LOVE YOU”

---

so, uh…how did that change your life. i thought you said you loved god already above all else before that. so what changed?

I was blind and now I see. I think there is a difference between understanding something intellectually and believing it in your heart. The former produces rhetoric. The latter, real transformation. Reading about what God does is mere words, but meeting God is beyond words.

 

[guanophore]

Why cant God just communicate with us directly?

What makes you think He isn’t? Our souls are fashioned for such communication, and do not function properly without it.

 

[guanophore]

God can do anything, right? It wont matter if there are 7 quadrillion people.

At least communicating with God directly would ensure us that he exists, and that we will know which religion is the right one.

Yes, God is certainly capable of communicating with His entire creation at all times.

One can be more sure of God’s existence through His communication, but since God is constantly calling all of humanity to Himself, and clearly people don’t hear, choose to ignore, or rationalize the calling, it is not true that the target of His communication is ever sure of His existence. In the end, a leap of faith is usually required.

The second part is also an erroneous conclusion, based upon the same false premise as the first. We know what religion is the right one because of what God has revealed to mankind about Himself. Although that revelation is public, many choose to ignore it in search of what seems to suit them better.

No. Im talking about literally hearing god. just like the prophets.

To those who have, more will be given. A person who refuses to accept general revelation is not likely to receive any more specific revelation.

what did paul and moses have that we did not?

Plenty! They are among the circumcised, and as such were entrusted with the oracles of God. They also both accepted the revelation what was given to them, both public and private, and responded with obedience. Persons who respond in that way place themselves in a position to receive more communication from God. Why would God continue to talk to someone who has their ears plugged? Would you?

 

[guanophore]

he should do it again so that the modern world can hear him.

The Truth about God does not change with the seasons and the ages of men. One of the basic principles of revelation is that it builds upon itself. If one is not willing to listen to the revelation that has come before, then one will not be ready to hear what comes next.

Luke 16:29-31
‘They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.’ 30 He said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’"

thats why we should hear from god directly, not from some messenger. AND ESPECIALLY NOT FROM A MESSENGER’S MESSENGER’S MESSENGER’S MESSENGER!

look, is there a bible story wherein god called to someone and that someone said “who’s this again? I DONT BELIEVE IT!”.

It sounds like you have some trust issues. You don’t seem to be able to trust that God can use fallible people to get His message to you intact. God has chosen to communicate through people.

what about something like a ghostly apparition or a burning bush and a booming sound that says “SOPHION! SOPHION! KNEEL FOR THE GROUND YOU ARE STANDING ON IS HOLY!”.

and then i reply “God”?

and then he goes on introducing himself and telling me what he really wants from me.

I can understand your desire for such proofs and signs. It is human nature to have more confidence in our own senses than in the Creator who made them.

If you accept the revelation that has already been given, then you will get more.

why the need for a mouthpiece?

So you can have an example of what works.

no. actually in the stories that Unbelieving Thomas had to see jesus with his own eyes before he believed. and he still a saint after that!

Yes and do you remember what Jesus had to say about that?

John 20:29
29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.”

thats just an example. someone asked.

it doesnt matter how as long as its LITERAL COMMUNICATION.

just like the so called prophets.

It sounds like you want God to act according to your specifications. Who are you, but a pot in the potters hand? How is it for you to say how He has made you?

Your comment about “so called prophets” reveals your lack of faith in what He has already revealed to us. Since you are not faithful in this, then you will not be able to be faithful in more.

if God speaks to all of us then it would be very easy filtering out the false ones.

actually the false ones would be very confused, hearing two contradicting voices! two opposing ideas!

I wish this were true, but in fact, we have 30,000 + denominations, all convinced they are hearing the right things, many having completely contradicting positions and opposing ideas. It is obvious that everyone believing God is speaking to them does not create unity or eliminate falsehood. You are right, though, the false ones are very confused.

---

and thats why you have all these thousands of religions today. nobody speaks so people end up imagining things, making things up. god’s message becomes a popularity contest sometimes ending in war. it becomes a matter of accident…catholics for being born into it.

No one is “born into” Catholicism. One must be baptized into the faith, and their parents or guardians must promise to raise them in the faith. Once the child reaches the age of reason, it is their choice whether to remain in the faith. It is not an “accident”.

 

[GregBussey]

Interesting. It makes perfect sense for you to believe given your experiences. Your perspective on whether people who have not seen should believe now has much less value, though.

It does not follow logically that since God sometimes does communicate directly, He therefore wishes for us to reject His message when it’s delivered indirectly through humans. Perhaps He wants to give us the chance to be blessed by believing without seeing? You know, we are supposed to ask, seek and knock. Perhaps He wants to reward His believers by allowing them to contribute to His work of saving souls? I’m sure He has His reasons for doing it the way He does.

 

[GregBussey]

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.

Questioning is good. God commands us to ask and seek. But you won’t find any “serious illness” in my case. I’m happily married, I have 8 kids, a great career, no meds, therapy or jail. My new life has been nothing but stable over the 2 decades since God first spoke to me.

 

[Abnormality]

How would God do this? There are 7 billion people.

Why would that be a problem for God? That’s an arbitrary limitation is it not?

 

[Abnormality]

It is we that are limited in our ability to hear…he communicates to us every day in nature, those we meet and in silence.

Convenient. What reason do i have to be convinced?

 

[Abnormality]

All of His creation continuously communicates God to us if we open ourselves to it. Read the lives of the saints (a good day to do that by the way.)

You are all avoiding the question. You are speaking about this mystical form of communication. God clearly is described as communicating to man in a more direct fashion. For example St.Paul on the road to damascus.

 

[Abnormality]

Why should your rules of communication apply?

Why not?

 

[Abnormality]

Ensuring he exists would negate the purpose of religion, we are called to have faith, not to Know.

That’s very convenient. Why should any rational person believe that?

 

[Abnormality]

Keep in mind that even in their times, many did not believe that what they spoke came from God. We have modern day people like this as well. Throughout all of history, people have been chosen to spread the message, deed, and image of God. It didn’t end with Moses or Paul. Look at Padre Pio. Pope John Paul II. All of the saints. Even you and me and everybody else, God communicates to us directly if we just learn how to hear.

It isn’t a question of why can’t He. Because He can and does.

You are just asserting that he communicates with us directly. Why do we need to learn to hear him in the first place, when he can just speak to us directly like he did with the biblical characters of the past.

This is not at all very convincing.

 

[davidv]

You are just asserting that he communicates with us directly. Why do we need to learn to hear him in the first place, when he can just speak to us directly like he did with the biblical characters of the past.

This is not at all very convincing.

How does your being convinced have any bearing on whether God is communicating with us directly?
The truth is.
It matters not if anyone knows it, likes it or believes it.

 

[Abnormality]

How does your being convinced have any bearing on whether God is communicating with us directly?
The truth is.
It matters not if anyone knows it, likes it or believes it.

That’s one way of avoiding the question. “Nobody matters”. I think it does matter, if you intend to convince people that there is a personal God who loves us and is supposedly communicating with us. If you want people to take Catholicism seriously then you are going to have to defend it rationally, instead of producing ad-hoc avoidance tactics.

Why would any good God choose to not speak to us directly? If God chooses to leave the impression that he might not exist, then nobody really has an obligation to believe that they must live a Catholic life.