Why cant God just communicate with us directly?

[zro_x]

I cannot make adjustments for him and (this is important) neither can God, when it comes to receptivity. I am suggesting that he try self-tuning as a strategy rather than go on insisting that the problem is an external one that requires a change in the signal volume or frequency coming from the “outer” source.

ok so how do i adjust my ‘focal points’?

Make the effort of doing things like going to Mass, the Sacraments, Adoration, and all the other places God is present. You’ve got to step into God’s House before He’ll sit down for an in-depth conversation…that’s only right and proper.

@Lochias

From what I gather from Sophion, at this point in his spiritual journey, it would make just as much sense follow the eightfold path, make a pilgrimage to mecca, or pay homage in a temple of Zeus. One just can’t trust one’s feelings when it comes to religion. If you did, you’d have a major probability of being in the wrong one. and in each one of those religions, that in-depth conversation would sound a little different.

@peter plato

Sophion, and many others, for that matter, don’t know how to adjust their focal points because they don’t have an instruction manual in front of them that appeared mirraculously out of thin air to all the inhabitants of the globe. You obviouly think that you can convince Sophion,through words alone, that he only needs some fine-tuning. But why doesn’t god himself, who can get his point across far better than any of us, convince Sophion through words that he needs fine tuning?

Sophion may never have considered the possibility that he needs fine tuning, or he may have, but why hasn’t god told him clearly and loudly to consider it?

 

[Portofino]

What you are assuming here is that truth is the kind of thing that should be so blatantly obvious that even a rock should “get it.” However, and I’ve made this point before, if the problem isn’t on the side of God, but on ours, where we need to be “fine-tuned” to be better able to receive something so intricately detailed and finely discernible as truth (or goodness), then making truth (or goodness) “more obvious” isn’t going to fix the problem. If the problem fundamentally is making us better “truth seekers” and agents for good then finding ways to challenge our faculties and virtues to make them stronger and more optimally tuned to finding truth and doing good turns your “everyone should hear it” paradigm on its head.

Not everyone hears or appreciates good music. Some even deny there is any universal standard of “good” when it comes to music. Your request is analogous to demanding of God that he produce music that everyone will hear and appreciate as “divine,” forgetting that perhaps God’s goal is to develop discerning spiritual ears in each of us to be able to seek out, hear and appreciate the “divine” that currently exists all around us. The fact that you cannot hear or see it is an indication of the current state of your faculties not with God’s ability to play divine music.

What you are saying is that God should change his tune so that you can hear or appreciate it better rather than entertaining the possibility that it is you who needs to put on better “listening” ears or “seeing” eyes to receive what already exists.

I do enjoy and appreciate these metaphors, which are reminiscent of the great Plato himself

I often get the impression, nonetheless, that the concrete application of these metaphors is uncertain. For example, if sophion were to ask “what do I have to do to fine tune myself?” a Zen Buddhist might tell him to practice meditation (zazen) and to yoke himself to a spiritual teacher.

Plato himself would say that the only means of fine-tuning is a devotion to philosophy, so might have welcomed him to the Academy

A Jungian might agree that fine-tuning is necessary, and recommend that he begin recording his dreams, and engage in a “self-confrontation with the unconscious.” They would tell him that no individual can fine-tune his inner hearing – or claim to know himself – without paying more attention to his dreams.

Even George Fox promulgated a method of fine-tuning, in learning to quiet the mind and listen to the God within. As we know, Quaker worship involves sitting in silence and patiently waiting for the promptings of the spirit.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, too, vindicates your metaphor by writing, in his essay “The Poet”:

“For poetry was all written before time was, and whenever we are so finely organized that we can penetrate into that region where the air is music, we hear those primal warblings, and attempt to write them down, but we lose ever and anon a word, or a verse, and substitute something of our own, and thus miswrite the poem. The men of more delicate ear write down these cadences more faithfully, and these transcripts, though imperfect, become the songs of the nations. For nature is as truly beautiful as it is good, or as it is reasonable, and must as much appear, as it must be done, or be known. Words and deeds are quite indifferent modes of the divine energy. Words are also actions, and actions are a kind of words.”

But Emerson was a Unitarian-turned-Transcendetalist – a former Unitarian minister – who no doubt would have given his own answer to the question, “what can I do to improve my inner tuning?”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sophion may never have considered the possibility that he needs fine tuning, or he may have, but why hasn’t god told him clearly and loudly to consider it?

We get back to the assumption that God hasn’t done so and isn’t doing so. Isn’t that precisely up to God and a matter between Sophion and God as to why that isn’t happening? To assume it is God’s problem may, in fact, be the problem. No?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I do enjoy and appreciate these metaphors, which are reminiscent of the great Plato himself

Titter. Giggle. Now you’re making me :blushing:

I often get the impression, nonetheless, that the concrete application of these metaphors is uncertain. For example, if sophion were to ask “what do I have to do to fine tune myself?” a Zen Buddhist might tell him to practice meditation (zazen) and to yoke himself to a spiritual teacher.

Plato himself would say that the only means of fine-tuning is a devotion to philosophy, so might have welcomed him to the Academy

A Jungian might agree that fine-tuning is necessary, and recommend that he begin recording his dreams, and engage in a “self-confrontation with the unconscious.” They would tell him that no individual can fine-tune his inner hearing – or claim to know himself – without paying more attention to his dreams.

Even George Fox promulgated a method of fine-tuning, in learning to quiet the mind and listen to the God within. As we know, Quaker worship involves sitting in silence and patiently waiting for the promptings of the spirit.

Ralph Waldo Emerson, too, vindicates your metaphor by writing, in his essay “The Poet”:

“For poetry was all written before time was, and whenever we are so finely organized that we can penetrate into that region where the air is music, we hear those primal warblings, and attempt to write them down, but we lose ever and anon a word, or a verse, and substitute something of our own, and thus miswrite the poem. The men of more delicate ear write down these cadences more faithfully, and these transcripts, though imperfect, become the songs of the nations. For nature is as truly beautiful as it is good, or as it is reasonable, and must as much appear, as it must be done, or be known. Words and deeds are quite indifferent modes of the divine energy. Words are also actions, and actions are a kind of words.”

But Emerson was a Unitarian-turned-Transcendetalist – a former Unitarian minister – who no doubt would have given his own answer question, “what can I do to improve my inner tuning?”

The point would be? Is there a one size fits all solution? Wouldn’t that depend on the individual and how they need to grow?

It seems to me that the Catholic “answers” are available to all and if anyone takes them seriously then they are efficacious. The large number of saints are evidence of that.

Problems seem to develop when the teachings are not followed completely, hesitantly or not at all and individuals wish to be critical of them, claiming they are not “the” answer because they have been tried (sort of) and found wanting.

From my point of view the teachings are not wanting. I may fail to live up to them, but to blame the teachings because I haven’t been faithful to them is dishonest on my part.

When Jesus says, “Sell all you have and come follow me!” I cannot blame Jesus if I haven’t received the kind of happiness I think I should have because I am being less than faithful to the beatitudes. The problem is my lack of faith, not a deficiency with the message. I haven’t done what he has said I should do. That is not his problem, it is mine.

 

[zro_x]

your rebellion assumption is completely unfounded. faith has been around for thousands of years where people believe that they are under constant surveillance. no problem at all.

Very true! I hadn’t though of that, but you’re right. In in the first few thousand years of human civilization, vitually everyone was religious and faced the stark reality of god. My guess is that God could save more souls at that particular time by actually giving worldwide locutions, and in modern times works more effectively from behind the scenes. this does not mean a change in god, but rather a change in society. at theis particular time, global locutions may be far more disatrous.

ok if thats your opinion.

neither of us know with absolute certainty whether or not my opinion is correct. That sort of thing is impossible to prove. God, however, being infinitely knowledgeable, does know. And doesn’t the fact that there are no global locutions show that the opinion is indeed correct?

for me why not both? spiritually strong in the right path? look at the story of abraham- enjoyed the best of both worlds.

quite right. it is true that earthly happiness is not necessarily contridictory to eternal. some people do indeed get to have both. But some people don’t.

In principle I do agree with what you said here, but I think a clarification needs to be made between peace and joy and earthly happiness. Part of our birthright as Christians is peace and joy, and when we don’t have it, we are missing the mark. But the kind of peace and joy that comes from the Holy Spirit is different than earthly happiness and contentment. It can occur even in the midst of trials and tribulations.

By earthly happiness, I meant any positive emotion felt on earth, and unfortunately, this is not part of our birthright. there are several christian saints and holy people, such as C.S. Lewis and Mother Theresa, who either did not experience joy and happiness for a long period of time, or else held that people inevitably fluctuate between peaks and troughs.

 

[zro_x]

@ peter plato

We get back to the assumption that God hasn’t done so and isn’t doing so.

it isn’t just an assumption. As long as sophion isn’t lying, it is a fact. note: ***loudly ***and clearly.

Isn’t that precisely up to God and a matter between Sophion and God as to why that isn’t happening?

if you mean that its none of my buisness, that’s true in the case of sophion and god, but not true in general case of people and god. if the Problem of Divine Hiddenness is incompatible with god and shows that he does not exist, that has some serious implications for how I plan on living my life.

To assume it is God’s problem may, in fact, be the problem. No?

Not really. If left unresolved, the PoDH is inconsistant with god and disproves his existance. Why would God, being omnibenevolent and omnipotent want to keep himself hidden? It isn’t because he wants Sophion to fine tune himself. He doesn’t know exactly how to do that, and God isn’t providing a physical instruction manual for doing so. you are trying, but god could do a much better job than you, or anyone else in your position.

thus, I fall back on the reasons I’ve outlined in my conversation with Sophion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Not really. If left unresolved, the PoDH is inconsistant with god and disproves his existance. Why would God, being omnibenevolent and omnipotent want to keep himself hidden? It isn’t because he wants Sophion to fine tune himself. He doesn’t know exactly how to do that, and God isn’t providing a physical instruction manual for doing so. you are trying, but god could do a much better job than you, or anyone else in your position.

thus, I fall back on the reasons I’ve outlined in my conversation with Sophion.

I am not clear that divine hiddenness is a “proof” of anything. It may be proof that God is not a genie ready to carry out every human bidding. It may even be a motivation for someone who believes they are owed some personal attention from God to stop seeking it, but it certainly isn’t “proof” of non-existence, in fact, for that very reason, it doesn’t even provide a reason to act as if God doesn’t exist.

There may be many reasons why overt manifestations from God are not forthcoming. Even a child recognizes that a parent is not always at their “beck and call.” For a child to feel insulted by their parent’s non attention at any specific time and stomp away, may be a sign of immaturity on their part. Perhaps the parent is attempting a “lesson” in patience and independence precisely because of the child’s attention seeking behaviour. For the child to mutter, “Fine, have it your way! I won’t believe in you, then!” is precisely what would be expected from an “offended” personality. A more mature response would be to continue on trusting that God has things in hand and will provide any overt response when he decides it is necessary.

As for the “physical instruction manual,” it exists in almost every language and comes with a current user’s guide (Catechism of the Catholic Church), interpreter’s manual (magisterium and Church teachings), user testimonials (lives of the saints and writings of the Church Fathers) and the sworn Word of God himself that it is authentic.

 

[Neoplatonist]

I am not clear that divine hiddenness is a “proof” of anything. It may be proof that God is not a genie ready to carry out every human bidding. It may even be a motivation for someone who believes they are owed some personal attention from God to stop seeking it, but it certainly isn’t “proof” of non-existence, in fact, for that very reason, it doesn’t even provide a reason to act as if God doesn’t exist.

There may be many reasons why overt manifestations from God are not forthcoming. Even a child recognizes that a parent is not always at their “beck and call.” For a child to feel insulted by their parent’s non attention at any specific time and stomp away, may be a sign of immaturity on their part. Perhaps the parent is attempting a “lesson” in patience and independence precisely because of the child’s attention seeking behaviour. For the child to mutter, “Fine, have it your way! I won’t believe in you, then!” is precisely what would be expected from an “offended” personality. A more mature response would be to continue on trusting that God has things in hand and will provide any overt response when he decides it is necessary.

As for the “physical instruction manual,” it exists in almost every language and comes with a current user’s guide (Catechism of the Catholic Church), interpreter’s manual (magisterium and Church teachings), user testimonials (lives of the saints and writings of the Church Fathers) and the sworn Word of God himself that it is authentic.

You’ve created a self-contained, unfalsifiable theory which has no rational claim of pre-eminence over any number of other such theories. If your argument is built out of a circular set of assumptions that allow for no possibility of disproof, how is that any different than a mere delusion? To wit: any attempt to judge the theory rationally counts as unbelief, and therefore you will not see the miracles or hear the voices. Not believing other people have seen the miracles and heard the voices also counts as unbelief, therefore you will not see the miracles for yourself. Pointing out that neither you nor anyone you know personally have seen the miracles is attempting to judge God by your standards of expectation, counts as unbelief, and therefore you will not see the miracles.

And btw, when you read about all that cool stuff in the Bible that makes you want to join in, well, don’t get your hopes up. Wanting to see miracles and stuff counts as unbelief, etc…

 

[Neoplatonist]

And at what point does the parent’s teaching transition to neglect or abandonment? Seriously.

 

[zro_x]

I am not clear that divine hiddenness is a “proof” of anything. It may be proof that God is not a genie ready to carry out every human bidding.

effectively proving that god is not omnibenevolent.

It may even be a motivation for someone who believes they are owed some personal attention from God to stop seeking it, but it certainly isn’t “proof” of non-existence, in fact, for that very reason, it doesn’t even provide a reason to act as if God doesn’t exist.

The PoDH,*** if left unresolved***, is inconsistant with god and diproves his existence. you offer potential resolutions.

There may be many reasons why overt manifestations from God are not forthcoming. Even a child recognizes that a parent is not always at their “beck and call.” For a child to feel insulted by their parent’s non attention at any specific time and stomp away, may be a sign of immaturity on their part. Perhaps the parent is attempting a “lesson” in patience and independence precisely because of the child’s attention seeking behaviour.

There is a big difference between god and a parent. God has unlimmited resources, and he doesn’t desire us to be independent of him. Though I completely agree that searching for god can sometimes make someone a spiritually better person than if the answers are simply laid out for them.

For the child to mutter, “Fine, have it your way! I won’t believe in you, then!” is precisely what would be expected from an “offended” personality. A more mature response would be to continue on trusting that God has things in hand and will provide any overt response when he decides it is necessary.

you are absolutely right in saying that we have no right to demand that god respond to our every whim. Being completely, utterly dependent on god, we have no right to ask him for anything. we don’t deserve anything he gives us. He pours out his gifts upon us, however, because he is omnibonevolent. The crucial question is, why would an omnibenevolent god want to keep himself hidden? If you are trying to say that you don’t know and that an omniscient god must have some reason, and that we should trust him to do whats best for us, well… I don’t like that argument, and it isn’t very satisfactory, but I suppose that it is valid. However, I think that the point of this post was to ask why god stays hidden from us, and that particular argument doesn’t answer the question.

As for the “physical instruction manual,” it exists in almost every language and comes with a current user’s guide (Catechism of the Catholic Church), interpreter’s manual (magisterium and Church teachings), user testimonials (lives of the saints and writings of the Church Fathers) and the sworn Word of God himself that it is authentic.

and how do we know that these are god’s messages? Why not the Hindu Veda, the Muslim Koran, or any other holy books? in any case, none of these books are the physical instruction manual I described. The book I described appeared out of thin air to every person on earth.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You’ve created a self-contained, unfalsifiable theory which has no rational claim of pre-eminence over any number of other such theories. If your argument is built out of a circular set of assumptions that allow for no possibility of disproof, how is that any different than a mere delusion? To wit: any attempt to judge the theory rationally counts as unbelief, and therefore you will not see the miracles or hear the voices. Not believing other people have seen the miracles and heard the voices also counts as unbelief, therefore you will not see the miracles for yourself. Pointing out that neither you nor anyone you know personally have seen the miracles is attempting to judge God by your standards of expectation, counts as unbelief, and therefore you will not see the miracles.

If we were trying to prove a scientific theory or natural phenomena, then a falsifiable proof would be an appropriate means of doing so. God is neither of these. Essentially God is “Personhood” with an inscrutable (to us) intentionality and will. The error is to treat God as if he were not. That is a problem for those who wish to insist that God is a “thing” rather than a trio of Persons.

I can choose to love and relate to my spouse, but to demand she prove herself to me in a manner that I demand seems tawdry, inappropriate and contrary to the nature of the relationship she “presumes” to have with me.

And btw, when you read about all that cool stuff in the Bible that makes you want to join in, well, don’t get your hopes up. Wanting to see miracles and stuff counts as unbelief, etc…

Since when has merely “wanting” something been a reason for getting it? Furthermore, wanting to see miracles does not reduce to disbelief. A person could express a desire to experience a miracle, even be enthralled by the possibility, without, thereby, holding God accountable or under some obligation to provide one.

If you mean having your desire to see miracles left unfulfilled is the cause of your disbelief, that would seem to be an unrealistic expectation on your part. Why should God provide a miracle to preserve your belief? Sounds like a “show me a sign or I won’t believe” kind of ultimatum directed at God. How should he respond to that? Perhaps with, “Let me know when you’ve grown up a bit.”

 

[CaptFun]

Re: Why cant God just communicate with us directly?

Are we SURE that’s what we want?

Sometimes He DOES! St. Paul found it scary!

Acts 22:6 "On that journey as I drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from the sky suddenly shone around me. 7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ 8 I replied, ‘Who are you, sir?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus the Nazorean whom you are persecuting.’

9 My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.

10 I asked, ‘What shall I do, sir?’ The Lord answered me, ‘Get up and go into Damascus, and there you will be told about everything appointed for you to do.’

11 Since I could see nothing because of the brightness of that light, I was led by hand by my companions and entered Damascus.

Other times of course He did this gently. Teaching in the temple as a boy. Appearing as a burning bush to Moses or a gentle breeze to Elijah.

Then too Isaiah was frightened to death until strengthened by an Angel who purged his “unclean lips” with a burning coal from the altar of heaven!

And St. John fell down as one dead when he saw a vision of Christ glorified as He is in heaven. Even though he’d seen Jesus in some of His glory before and many miracles!

St. Thomas had just that wish … until upon seeing Him again … he was scolded for his lack of faith.

The Israelites begged Moses to ask God not to speak to them so directly, in terror, when they heard His voice … and God agreed it was good … and spoke to them through Moses thereafter.

BUT your question is good. And one day this may (will?) happen.

St. Paul reminds us that NOW we see Him as through a glass, darkly. Then we shall behold Him as He is face to face. < paraphrase.

God communicates with us all the time. If the question betrays a desire to communicate with Him more intimately … this would seem to be quite a holy thought, and in line with what Jesus said would happen to us if we followed Him.

And actually, in human terms, we are communicating “directly” with a person we talk with on the phone or the internet in real time … just not as intimately as it would be “in person.”

From minute to moment, being human, sometimes we prefer the little bit of distance to the commitment of being in the complete presence of another. Less hospitality demands etc. when we host … less courtesy demands when we “guest”.

A great counter question to this is … Why DON’T we communicate with GOD more intimately, honestly and completely?

But its implications are too scary for me right now. If Jesus calls me “home” at this minute … I’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do. And adjusting. Hopefully not so much as to
not enjoy His presence as HE desires. But that Isaiah “purgatory” moment is probably in my future IF I’m lucky (i.e. faithful).

 

[CaptFun]

Perhaps he does but requires a proper state of receptivity. If you are asking him to communicate on your terms rather than his, that would seem rather presumptuous. Why should your rules of communication apply?

20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.”

22Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”

23Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

25“All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid. (John 14:20-27)

Thank you for quoting scripture … and seemingly applying it well. I will reread this a couple times but this is my initial impression.

I liked Socrates too (Monotheistic non-Jewish pre-Christian curmudgeon that he was).
But I’m a little confused your calling your religion “Socratic”.

I often thought that term applied to questioning everything with great scrutiny without yet being a cynic who can’t learn anything if the proposal or teachings weather that scrutiny.
Hadn’t thought of it as a religion … but a school of thought preceding Aristotelian logic.

That is to say an applied philosophy that uses deduction, induction and a sort of mathematics to get at the truth of things. Or closer to the truth by eliminating as many errors as can be detected.

Socrates had a belief in ONE God … and to our way of thinking, got the number right.
But I don’t remember him founding a religion or making exclusive claims like Jesus did.

So … is your “Socratic” an aspect of your Christianity or something else. Since you did quote scripture like someone who is rather familiar with it.

However … my curiosity is a deviation from the thread so … I’ll just remark that I thought
your answer was good and the scripture applied.

 

[zro_x]

Essentially God is “Personhood” with an inscrutable (to us) intentionality and will.

and yet, many theologians throughout history have attempted to discover god’s reasons for doing things!

 

[OLofMtCarmel]

Why cant God just communicate with us directly?

Ever since the beginning, God has made Himself known to man, even more direct, with miracles abounding. But even after such miracles, they seem to begin doubting. If you read the Gospels you’ll find that even after Jesus appeared to the apostles after His resurrection, it says that they doubted. We always pin the doubt only on Thomas. Poor Doubting Thomas, he wasn’t the only doubter in the group.

I believe that we have a better chance of following God if we don’t see him more directly. Otherwise we’d try to reduce him down to our size, mere mortal. Then we’d tell him what to do as if we were in charge or even know better…

 

[CaptFun]

Perhaps he does but requires a proper state of receptivity. If you are asking him to communicate on your terms rather than his, that would seem rather presumptuous. Why should your rules of communication apply?

20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.”

22Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”

23Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

25“All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid. (John 14:20-27)

Thank you for quoting scripture … and seemingly applying it well. I will reread this a couple times but this is my initial impression.

I liked Socrates too (Monotheistic non-Jewish pre-Christian curmudgeon that he was).
But I’m a little confused your calling your religion “Socratic”.

I often thought that term applied to questioning everything with great scrutiny without yet being a cynic who can’t learn anything if the proposal or teachings weather that scrutiny.
Hadn’t thought of it as a religion … but a school of thought preceding Aristotelian logic.

That is to say an applied philosophy that uses deduction, induction and a sort of mathematics to get at the truth of things. Or closer to the truth by eliminating as many errors as can be detected.

Socrates had a belief in ONE God … and to our way of thinking, got the number right.
But I don’t remember him founding a religion or making exclusive claims like Jesus did.

So … is your “Socratic” an aspect of your Christianity or something else. Since you did quote scripture like someone who is rather familiar with it.

However … my curiosity is a deviation from the thread so … I’ll just remark that I thought
your answer was good and the scripture applied.

 

[Peter_Plato]

effectively proving that god is not omnibenevolent.

Seriously?
How does that argument go?

1. Omnibenevolence is defined as the will and power to provide every human being what they want at all times and places.
2. God does not provide what every human being wants at all times and places.
   Therefore, God is not omnibenevolent.

The crucial question is, why would an omnibenevolent god want to keep himself hidden? If you are trying to say that you don’t know and that an omniscient god must have some reason, and that we should trust him to do whats best for us, well… I don’t like that argument, and it isn’t very satisfactory, but I suppose that it is valid. However, I think that the point of this post was to ask why god stays hidden from us, and that particular argument doesn’t answer the question.

Do you not see an inherent problem with believing that God is indeed a Person (or three) and then attempt to answer “for him” what he should or shouldn’t do? To assume that anyone else (besides God) can answer that question is to deny the very autonomy of God that comes with using the word “God” in any way approaching a traditional theistic sense.

Your claim seems to be that God should be the one to be completely transparent and immediately responsive to every human being or he couldn’t be God. Your proof for that claim would be? Keeping in mind that the means of access to God advocated in Scripture is to “Give all you have to the poor and come follow me!” or "To find yourself you must lose yourself.” The Scriptural notion of self-emptying to make yourself transparent and immediately responsive to God seems quite contrary to your insistence that God should be the one doing the responding to your will.

I am extremely skeptical of any claim that starts out with, “God should…”

and how do we know that these are god’s messages? Why not the Hindu Veda, the Muslim Koran, or any other holy books? in any case, none of these books are the physical instruction manual I described. The book I described appeared out of thin air to every person on earth.

So God must conform to your way of doing things or he is not worthy of being God?

Do you even have an inkling of the audacity in that expectation? I suggest you ponder this with all the humility you can muster.

 

[CaptFun]

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.

That’s pretty much what occurred to me Ophelia.

We would disagree with the words “can’t” and “just” in Sophion’s question.

Can’t - He can.

Doesn’t - is true in most cases (although you and I agree with what we think is “direct”). My previous post recalled the MORE direct communications with people God sometimes had with them.

Won’t - is more accurate than can’t, since God CAN do anything. Won’t is only true for now. One day, we are assured, we will see him very directly. Will it be pleasant or terrifying or both in some order?

“Just” … is sort of a complaint word, though it appears the complaint is directed at believers if Sophion doesn’t believe. Or is questioning whether God exists at all?

I’m taking it as a sort of intellectual argument (against God’s existence) rather than a
complaint TO God … as in " …why don’t you JUST communicate with me directly … instead of these ‘seek and you shall find …’ hints.

Sorry if I got you wrong Sophion … that’s how it came across to me when I examined what you’d said.

 

[Peter_Plato]

and yet, many theologians throughout history have attempted to discover god’s reasons for doing things!

I suspect what you are talking about here are theologians who attempt to understand the “reasons” that God himself provides through his Prophets, inspired Scripture and revelation. I am not aware of anyone who tries to “read the mind” of God on their own initiative to fathom why God does what he does without resorting to some evidential data in support of a claim. I think Job’s friends were reprimanded for “speaking for” God when they weren’t acting on his authority when doing so. False prophets, who claimed to speak for God, were likewise severely condemned. Proper protocol is to “be the clay” and not be presumptuous by telling the Potter how he should work.

 

[Neoplatonist]

If we were trying to prove a scientific theory or natural phenomena, then a falsifiable proof would be an appropriate means of doing so. God is neither of these. Essentially God is “Personhood” with an inscrutable (to us) intentionality and will. The error is to treat God as if he were not. That is a problem for those who wish to insist that God is a “thing” rather than a trio of Persons.

I can choose to love and relate to my spouse, but to demand she prove herself to me in a manner that I demand seems tawdry, inappropriate and contrary to the nature of the relationship she “presumes” to have with me.

Since when has merely “wanting” something been a reason for getting it? Furthermore, wanting to see miracles does not reduce to disbelief. A person could express a desire to experience a miracle, even be enthralled by the possibility, without, thereby, holding God accountable or under some obligation to provide one.

If you mean having your desire to see miracles left unfulfilled is the cause of your disbelief, that would seem to be an unrealistic expectation on your part. Why should God provide a miracle to preserve your belief? Sounds like a “show me a sign or I won’t believe” kind of ultimatum directed at God. How should he respond to that? Perhaps with, “Let me know when you’ve grown up a bit.”

But your model of “spouse” is indiscernible from the delusions that movie-star stalkers create in their own heads. “Oh, she just doesn’t let on that she loves me, because . . .” How could you possibly have a spouse that you never saw, she never answered your requests (because apparently asking her to help you when you are confused or frustrated is some unfair demand), and so on?

It is a perfectly mature, healthy function of relationships to say, at some point, “You are not participating actively in this. Why would you even want me to stay?” More specifically, if I could not figure out how her actions (or silence) were done out of love, it would be unhealthy to continue assuming they were. Trying to figure out how God’s hiddenness could possibly coincide with his claims to love us and want to give us bread when we ask for bread, rather than stones is kind of the point of this thread, right?

I mean, look, fine if the bread (or whatever) would not be good for us. But surely even a human father would not just stand silent and let the kid wonder - he could say, “not right now” or “maybe in a little while” or “no, that wouldn’t be good for you” or “sure, go find the bread and have as much as you want.” There are infinite possible explanations for silence. He doesn’t have to give us the bread. I get that. How could we distinguish between silent parenting and just being ignored?

Would you really marry someone that never showed you she loved you? I don’t mean in a letter she sent to her friend who sent it to you. Never held hands. Never had a whole conversation.

Imagine a father who left when you were two. Maybe he even left you a note that said when the time is right, and he thinks you’re ready, he’ll come see you. Even throw a big birthday party for you. For how many years would you keep thinking, “I know, no cards, no letters, no phone calls. Still, I just know it, he still really loves me and this is the year he’s going to come back.” ??

Why “should” God show me a miracle? I’m not saying he “should.” I’m saying he said he would come see me and he hasn’t. That causes me frustration and confusion. We try to alleviate the confusion and frustration of people we love and care about, even if it is just to say, “it will make sense later.” I don’t see/hear any consolation, so the premise that he loves me the way a “person” -even taken analogously -would.