Divine Communication

[Scarlett Wampus]

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.

There is some consensus on the qualities of transcendental experiences but the interpretations are widely different like you say.

Here's a thought experiment: If the electromagnetic spectrum that you could see with your eyes was mixed with some different wavelengths like infrared, x-ray, microwave, gamma-ray, etc. but the type of wavelengths available to your perception were not constant and were in fact were chaotically random, infrequent and your sensitivity to them varied, what would it do to your understanding of what was around you?

Now try to imagine that this was happening to you and others at a time before there were any scientific instruments capable of measuring the electromagnetic spectrum and thus no established scientific model of the electromagnetic spectrum.

 

[Sunstone]

Here's a thought experiment: If the electromagnetic spectrum that you could see with your eyes was mixed with some different wavelengths like infrared, x-ray, microwave, gamma-ray, etc. but the type of wavelengths available to your perception were not constant and were in fact were chaotically random, infrequent and your sensitivity to them varied, what would it do to your understanding of what was around you?

Now try to imagine that this was happening to you and others at a time before there were any scientific instruments capable of measuring the electromagnetic spectrum and thus no established scientific model of the electromagnetic spectrum.

That is perhaps the best description/interpretation of "god" I've ever seen. :clap

Naturally, I am going to steal it.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Naturally, I am going to steal it.

Lolz Naturally.

 

[Mister Emu]

I agree. There's an experience characterized by a suspension of subject/object perception while experiencing continues.

I have to say, that is not what I was talking about

 

[Sunstone]

I have to say, that is not what I was talking about

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Storm]

Then he's not God, is he?

Um, yes... it is. What an odd response.

You prefer all this chaos, debate, confusion and even the most faithful struggle with legitimate doubts?

I prefer to figure things out for myself. I prefer the potential for growth.

In that case, you better hope there is no heaven and if there is that you don't go there.

Another bizarre response.

 

[TheKnight]

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.

True. I don't think I described it right. The emphasis is to be on us. That's what God wants. He wants humanity to come to Him on it's own, without His interfering too much. So the revelation (while necessary) would be kept to a minimum...

 

[Man of Faith]

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?

Millions believe with out seeing, should God force himself on the 15% that don't believe? Should he come and camp out in their yard, and create universes for them as proof? The Bible says if we don't believe the prophets then we won't believe even when someone comes back from the dead. And that is the truth that I see, we have people now days coming back from the dead and reporting to us what it was like.

 

[slave2six]

True. I don't think I described it right. The emphasis is to be on us. That's what God wants. He wants humanity to come to Him on it's own, without His interfering too much. So the revelation (while necessary) would be kept to a minimum...

How can you know this? This sounds like just another story trying to combine faith with the lack of evidence that this God person exists.

 

[slave2six]

Millions believe with out seeing, should God force himself on the 15% that don't believe? Should he come and camp out in their yard, and create universes for them as proof? The Bible says if we don't believe the prophets then we won't believe even when someone comes back from the dead. And that is the truth that I see, we have people now days coming back from the dead and reporting to us what it was like.

And they kill each other because this group doesn't believe in the same way as that group. So, yeah, it seems reasonable that if God cares about people that he would show up and reveal himself to each of us in a way that we understand so that we stop killing each other. I mean, what kid fights with his/her siblings about what their dad is like? And if he showed up then there would be no need for religion at all because each one would know him themselves. Isn't that what the Christian picture of Heaven is?

 

[slave2six]

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

Originally Posted by slave2six
Then he's not God, is he?

Um, yes... it is. What an odd response.

The instant you say that God can't do something then you remove omnipotence from his attributes which in turn changes him/her/it from God Almighty to a minor deity that only has some powers and not others (which is not how I was thinking when I referred to "god" in the OP).

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.

Another bizarre response.

I merely mean that if you prefer anarchy and chaos then an orderly, peaceful eternity doesn't sound like a desirable prospect.

 

[Danizar]

But how can one grow spiritually if there is complete order and certainty? One grows through the choices they make in this life (and other lives, if you believe in reincarnation).

 

[slave2six]

But how can one grow spiritually if there is complete order and certainty? One grows through the choices they make in this life (and other lives, if you believe in reincarnation).

How does a prenatal infant grow to trust its father? It can't until it is born and gains some experience with him. Personally, I think all this business of growing spiritually is exactly the same. If one accepts the premise that we have spirits (which I at present do not) then one can clearly demonstrate that we can no more understand the spiritual realm than a fetus can understand life outside the womb. Nor does the fetus stress out about whether there is such a thing as life after birth. If our physical bodies contain eternal spirits, how can that spirit know anything at all about the next world until it gets there? Isn't that the place where a spirit ought to grow up? If, however, we are supposed to be trusting God now (or there will be Hell to pay!) then doesn't it seem a bit rational to you that God has a responsibility to reveal himself to us all so that we aren't bickering about him to each other?

When you marry, you love and trust your spouse. That love and trust grows over time and through experiences. Why do you think that a complete absence of God allows for trust whereas the undeniable daily experience with God does not?

 

[slave2six]

But how can one grow spiritually if there is complete order and certainty?

Isn't order and certainty precisely what we provide for our children (as much as is within our control)? If not, why are homo sapiens no longer nomads?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Isn't order and certainty precisely what we provide for our children ...

Not if you're a decent parent.

If not, why are homo sapiens no longer nomads?

Good grief! :slap:

 

[Danizar]

How does a prenatal infant grow to trust its father? It can't until it is born and gains some experience with him. Personally, I think all this business of growing spiritually is exactly the same. If one accepts the premise that we have spirits (which I at present do not) then one can clearly demonstrate that we can no more understand the spiritual realm than a fetus can understand life outside the womb. Nor does the fetus stress out about whether there is such a thing as life after birth. If our physical bodies contain eternal spirits, how can that spirit know anything at all about the next world until it gets there? Isn't that the place where a spirit ought to grow up? If, however, we are supposed to be trusting God now (or there will be Hell to pay!) then doesn't it seem a bit rational to you that God has a responsibility to reveal himself to us all so that we aren't bickering about him to each other?

When you marry, you love and trust your spouse. That love and trust grows over time and through experiences. Why do you think that a complete absence of God allows for trust whereas the undeniable daily experience with God does not?

But many people have had spiritual experiences, like astral projection and enlightenment.

 

[Man of Faith]

And they kill each other because this group doesn't believe in the same way as that group. So, yeah, it seems reasonable that if God cares about people that he would show up and reveal himself to each of us in a way that we understand so that we stop killing each other. I mean, what kid fights with his/her siblings about what their dad is like? And if he showed up then there would be no need for religion at all because each one would know him themselves. Isn't that what the Christian picture of Heaven is?

He probably doesn't want to hear you call him cruel or something.

 

[Storm]

The instant you say that God can't do something then you remove omnipotence from his attributes which in turn changes him/her/it from God Almighty to a minor deity that only has some powers and not others

I think you need to do some research on pantheism/ panentheism.

(which is not how I was thinking when I referred to "god" in the OP).

God forbid someone introduce another concept.

I merely mean that if you prefer anarchy and chaos then an orderly, peaceful eternity doesn't sound like a desirable prospect.

Way to twist my words. :slap:

 

[Man of Faith]

The irony of this post is the atheist can have divine communication with the creator, but they have to have faith first. The atheist wants proof first, the creator wants faith first, it's a stand off. Who is going to win?

 

[Valjean]

The irony of this post is the atheist can have divine communication with the creator, but they have to have faith first. The atheist wants proof first, the creator wants faith first, it's a stand off. Who is going to win?

Thus God is the conceptual equal of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or Tooth Fairy. All are equally plausible.