Divine Communication

[slave2six]

So, here's my problem (for today at least) - The Torah, New Testament, and Koran all have stories about how God spoke to someone either face to face or through an angel. To my mind, this is actually preferable to things like hearing God in nature or taking an offhand comment that someone made that resonates with you and attributing it to God or even having happy feelings and doing the same.

In each of these stories, it is God communicating with someone on a level that a human being can understand and cannot deny or dismiss as anything but God that is the proof presented to people who weren't there at the time.

So, if God can communicate with humans on a level that they can understand and that cannot be dismissed as indigestion or an overactive imagination, why doesn't he/she/it? I mean, wouldn't that be preferable to all this cacophony of personal opinion that we deal with?

Some will begin to talk about a "test of faith" and whatnot but here's the thing. I have faith in my spouse because of my experience with her - not just because I blindly believe that she exists and is a good person. Faith that is based on something real is more valuable than faith based on something that is not. I would have all the faith in God that anyone could ask for if he/she/it communicated with humans on a level that we understand and cannot deny.

 

[Man of Faith]

If God, Allah, or Zeus appeared before you, you would still have to have faith that they were who they said they were.

 

[Storm]

1) I don't believe that God can communicate with us in such a way.

2) I'm not sure that it would be preferable, myself. It would be easier, to be sure, but that's not always the same thing.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Wandering around in the desert under the hot sun for extended periods can cause all sorts of realistic hallucinations.

 

[TheKnight]

So, here's my problem (for today at least) - The Torah, New Testament, and Koran all have stories about how God spoke to someone either face to face or through an angel. To my mind, this is actually preferable to things like hearing God in nature or taking an offhand comment that someone made that resonates with you and attributing it to God or even having happy feelings and doing the same.

In each of these stories, it is God communicating with someone on a level that a human being can understand and cannot deny or dismiss as anything but God that is the proof presented to people who weren't there at the time.

So, if God can communicate with humans on a level that they can understand and that cannot be dismissed as indigestion or an overactive imagination, why doesn't he/she/it? I mean, wouldn't that be preferable to all this cacophony of personal opinion that we deal with?

Some will begin to talk about a "test of faith" and whatnot but here's the thing. I have faith in my spouse because of my experience with her - not just because I blindly believe that she exists and is a good person. Faith that is based on something real is more valuable than faith based on something that is not. I would have all the faith in God that anyone could ask for if he/she/it communicated with humans on a level that we understand and cannot deny.

The answer to your question is complex.

But to put it simply,

When God revealed the Torah 3300 years ago at Sinai to 3+ million Jews. He did so intending for them to be the witness people (hence--"You are a light to the nations"~Isaiah 42:6). In essence, God wants the Jews to reveal His presence to the rest of the world. When we do good deeds we reveal God. When we obey the Torah, we reveal God.

In essence, God does not reveal Himself because He wants us to by reflecting Him in our actions.

 

[JustWondering]

If God, Allah, or Zeus appeared before you, you would still have to have faith that they were who they said they were.

If random gods started appearing before me or talking to me I would check myself into a mental hospital to see if I could retreive my sanity.

 

[Mister Emu]

So, if God can communicate with humans on a level that they can understand and that cannot be dismissed as indigestion or an overactive imagination, why doesn't he/she/it?

Who says He doesn't?

 

[slave2six]

If God, Allah, or Zeus appeared before you, you would still have to have faith that they were who they said they were.

Hmmm. If aliens from outer space landed on my front lawn and came into my house would I believe that they were really from outer space? Yes.

Look - if He's God then he can do anything so what's so hard about showing up and presenting yourself in a way that cannot be denied? If he made us then he knows what makes us tick and how to communicate with us effectively. If he showed up as a trash bin or a peeling bit of wallpaper or even as a homeless guy wandering around mumbling to himself then, yeah, who would believe that? But if he can send angels to people then why not send himself. And why only show himself to a select few?

Which leads to...

In essence, God wants the Jews to reveal His presence to the rest of the world. When we do good deeds we reveal God. When we obey the Torah, we reveal God.God does not reveal Himself because He wants us to by reflecting Him in our actions.

That sounds very strange to me. That's like me telling two of my kids to go out to my other three kids and live life in the way that I have told them to so that those three kids will come to know me through their siblings. Seems a bit silly to me and certainly it will lead to resentment ("Why does dad show himself to you and not to us?") and arguments ("What he really meant was....") all of which would be avoided if I simply interacted with all five of my kids myself.

1) I don't believe that God can communicate with us in such a way.

Then he's not God, is he?

2) I'm not sure that it would be preferable, myself. It would be easier, to be sure, but that's not always the same thing.

You prefer all this chaos, debate, confusion and even the most faithful struggle with legitimate doubts? In that case, you better hope there is no heaven and if there is that you don't go there.

 

[Sunstone]

Who says He doesn't?

I agree. There's an experience characterized by a suspension of subject/object perception while experiencing continues. Some people call that experience "god". Although I think it's strange to put a name on the nameless, who can say that experience is not god. And if it is god, then god communicates in a way markedly different from indigestion or an overactive imagination, among other things.

Of course one can wonder whether we are very good at getting the message, if any, of such experiences. The very fact we sometimes call such experiences "god" probably indicates we are not all that good at getting any message the experiences might have for us.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

I feel that if a God wanted a working relationship with me that required I know of its existence it would at the very least present itself in a way that I could verify for myself and continue to do so.

Even if I met some deity in personable form I'd soon begin to doubt it was what it appeared to be if it didn't check in at least once in a while.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Of course one can wonder whether we are very good at getting the message, if any, of such experiences.

I also wonder, why choose that medium to communicate?

 

[Sunstone]

I also wonder, why choose that medium to communicate?

That's a very good question. Why would deity -- if there is such a thing as deity -- choose a transcendental experience to communicate to us with? (What is being transcended is subject/object perception, which is our normal mode of perception.) A very interesting question.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

That's a very good question. Why would deity -- if there is such a thing as deity -- choose a transcendental experience to communicate to us with? (What is being transcended is subject/object perception, which is our normal mode of perception.) A very interesting question.

A very open question. A real time killer!

To come back to what you posted before about not getting the message and having a concept of "god" suggesting that's the case; Maybe it isn't about deity, whatever that might be, choosing one type of communication over another. This is incredibly speculative so apologies, but:-

Our normal modes of perception could be so well developed that we are already in constant close communication with deity (or just “how things are”) at those levels. However, since transcendental experiences are rather rare it could be that yes, our perception is premature and at that level.

I think it could be said we are not just premature but dysfunctional at that level. Look at all the noise, confusion, yearning, contradiction, strange beliefs, etc. there is around trying to understand or generate such experiences!

 

[Quagmire]

Apparently, according to the Bible, God only communicates directly with wanderring nomads and children.

Unless I missed somebody.

 

[slave2six]

Of course one can wonder whether we are very good at getting the message, if any, of such experiences. The very fact we sometimes call such experiences "god" probably indicates we are not all that good at getting any message the experiences might have for us.

Which is precisely in line with the OP. If God manufactured us and intends to communicate with us then it seems to me that it is more up to the manufacturer to ensure that they product isn't defective than it is tot he product. And if we were intentionally made the way we are made then one would have to assume that any miscommunication or non-communication is entirely the fault of the manufacturer.

 

[slave2six]

I feel that if a God wanted a working relationship with me that required I know of its existence it would at the very least present itself in a way that I could verify for myself and continue to do so.

Even if I met some deity in personable form I'd soon begin to doubt it was what it appeared to be if it didn't check in at least once in a while.

Good point. And that, really, is how we define relationships isn't it? It's not enough to know about someone. It is repeated interaction that builds relationships (and trust and faith in that person as well).

 

[slave2six]

Apparently, according to the Bible, God only communicates directly with wandering nomads and children.

When he isn't chatting it up with Satan with the occasional "Have you considered my servant Job?" just to wreak havoc on some poor guy's life.

 

[Sunstone]

A very open question. A real time killer!

Indeed.

To come back to what you posted before about not getting the message and having a concept of "god" suggesting that's the case; Maybe it isn't about deity, whatever that might be, choosing one type of communication over another. This is incredibly speculative so apologies, but:-

Our normal modes of perception could be so well developed that we are already in constant close communication with deity (or just “how things are”) at those levels. However, since transcendental experiences are rather rare it could be that yes, our perception is premature and at that level.

I think it could be said we are not just premature but dysfunctional at that level. Look at all the noise, confusion, yearning, contradiction, strange beliefs, etc. there is around trying to understand or generate such experiences!

That's a very good point! Whether we are premature or have lost whatever ability we once had in that area, we certainly show evidence of being dysfunctional.

I think it's pretty clear that people sometimes have transcendental experiences that feature a suspension of subject/object perception. But -- and this is a huge but -- my hunch is that anything they think or say about such experiences are little more than interpretations.

And those interpretations most often conform to some large extent to what people have been taught to expect of such experiences. Consequently, there are not too many dispassionate observers when it comes to such experiences.

A person from one culture interprets their experience as an experience of the Christian God. Another, from another culture, interprets their experience as an experience of Shiva. And yet another person, from another culture or background, interprets their experience naturalistically, sans deity, as something like the Tao.

People tend to think their interpretation is absolutely true. It's hard to convince a person who believes he or she has experienced Shiva that they have not experienced Shiva, but have instead merely interpreted their experience as an experience of Shiva. But, really, there is no reason to suppose that humans are better and more accurate observers of transcendental experiences than they are accurate observers of car wrecks. Ask ten witnesses what happened at a car wreck and you will get ten different sworn testimonies as to what happened. About all they agree on is that there was an accident.

There is some consensus about transcendental experiences. Maybe there is more consensus than my analogy of a car wreck would suggest. But it does not seem safe for us to say that transcendental experiences are designed to communicate something to us.

 

[Sunstone]

Which is precisely in line with the OP. If God manufactured us and intends to communicate with us then it seems to me that it is more up to the manufacturer to ensure that they product isn't defective than it is tot he product. And if we were intentionally made the way we are made then one would have to assume that any miscommunication or non-communication is entirely the fault of the manufacturer.

Good point.

 

[Valjean]

Whence the multiplicity of religions?

The mystical experience Sunstone mentioned aside, I don't see a lot of consistency in these alleged divine communications. You'd think an omnipotent, omniscient God would be able to communicate a clear and consistent message, and that he would be able to choose prophets who wouldn't subsequently distort it.

When someone like George Bush declares his policies are guided by his direct communication with God, well, you can understand my skepticism.