Do you think that God should communicate directly to everyone in the world?

[shunyadragon]

Granted, but 'meaningful' and 'convincing' are both value judgements made subjectively by the individual (which is a perfectly normal and effective way to accept or reject evidence).

You are playing a Blue Smoke and Mirrors shell game. Meaningfulness and convincing may be just value judgments from your perspective, but not in a court of law. In the courts of law the objective verifiable physical evidence takes precedence over any possible conflicting subjective or anecdotal evidence. In fact if there is only anecdotal or subjective evidence in a court case it fails based on the legal standards of evidence.

I will rest on science, and actual historical, archaeological and paleontological evidence, to when considering the reliability and provenance of ancient scripture as a witness of the reality of our history based the archaeological and historical evidence. This objective evidence stands in a court of law, and the historicity of the Bible does not.

What is or isn't accepted as evidence in a court of law is determined by the subjective process of precedent, itself determined by the subjective opinion of judges on a case by case basis. Scientific evidence obviously fits quite a separate category and seeking such strict, formal measures on a forum is kind of ludicrous. We are limited to electronic media and almost exclusively text based communication, after all.



Considering that you copied and pasted this from an online source:

Unnamed author from Oxford

Published in book form

Copied to the internet version

Relayed to you by Google

And pasted here for me.

That's what? 5th hand testimony? from a written work with no provenance of authorship?

I still consider this evidence as it is a body of information indicating the truth of a proposition. Just like scripture.



And when we design an experiment on this subject we had better adhere to these rules if we are to be taken seriously. We aren't doing that, though. We're debating. And we aren't debating how best to use a super collider so scientific evidence is hardly necessary.

More shmooze and blue smoke and mirrors. Courts of Law and science have higher standards of evidence that are functioning in the real world. I consider your view of evidence severely deluded.

Yes, exactly. Should I remind you that the Bible has been entered into evidence more than once under many different legal systems? I hope not, I really don't want to do that research.

Research away, remember you would be trying to use the references in the Bible as evidence to demonstrate history where there is not evidence outside the Bible. Such things as the Biblical Flood, literal Creation and the Tower of Babel come to mind as historical claims in the Bible that will not stand up in court nor the test of evidence in science nor archaeology.

This has gotta be a joke of unbelievable proportions, Absolutely NO, the Bible has not been suitable for evidence in many many years concerning the reliability of the text in history. You are appealing to the medieval.

The Bible totally lacks the provenance and documented authorship to be used as evidence no further than those that claim by 'faith' to believe it so.

I will be awaiting the response with your so to speak 'research.'

 

[Segev Moran]

Do you think that God should communicate directly to everyone in the world?

If you think God should do that, please explain why you think so.
If you think God should not do that, please explain why not.

Please explain the reasons for your answer.

Thanks, Trailblazer

IMO its not a question of should.

Imagine a system that streams electricity to an electric device.
Its not a question if the electricity should run through the cable and activate the machine, rather if the device is connected to the power source.
If you are connected to the power source, you get electricity.

The electricity is there, if you connect, you get it.
So on the same note, the data is available. you just need to "tune" your brain to understand the language of this communication.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hello. I see the key word in your question is 'directly'.

I am no theologian (not that they necessarily know more about this than anyone else!) but it seems to me that this is related to free will.

Why not make all of creation automatically worship Her? Then we would all just be automatons. We live in a rational universe and have been endowed with rational minds as well as loving hearts (though obviously the latter are often blackened by a number of factors, mostly cultural/societal IMHO). No, we must choose to know and love the creator, through creation, using our minds and hearts.

Of course I could very well be wrong

Yes, it is related to free will. If God communicated directly to everyone we would all just be automatons believing in God because God foisted Himself on us. Everything else we do in this life is based upon free will, so why should belief in God be any different?

If God communicated directly to someone, how could they choose not to believe? I suppose one could argue they could still choose not to believe but that would make it too easy. God does not want it to be that easy, God wants us to make a sincere effort to determine if He exists, and thereby prove our Love for Him... I believe that because of what Baha'u'llah wrote below, which is just so eloquent, at least it is to me...

Baha’u’llah wrote that God could have made all men one people. In the context of the passage below, it means that God could have made all people believe in His Messengers. The passage goes on to say why God didn’t do that...

“He Who is the Day Spring of Truth is, no doubt, fully capable of rescuing from such remoteness wayward souls and of causing them to draw nigh unto His court and attain His Presence. “If God had pleased He had surely made all men one people.” His purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean, that thereby they who seek the Beauty of the All-Glorious may be distinguished and separated from the wayward and perverse. Thus hath it been ordained by the all-glorious and resplendent Pen…”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 71

According to this passage, is that God wants everyone to search for Him and determine if He exists by using their own free will (by virtue of their own innate powers). God only wants those who are sincere and truly search for Him to believe in Him. God wants to distinguish those people from the others who are not sincere, those who are unwilling to put forth any effort (wayward and perverse).

God does not owe everyone a free ride just so they won’t have to do anything. Everyone has free will so it is a level playing field and everyone can look at the Messenger of God if they choose to do so... However, that requires some effort, just like anything in life...

“The incomparable Creator hath created all men from one same substance, and hath exalted their reality above the rest of His creatures. Success or failure, gain or loss, must, therefore, depend upon man’s own exertions. The more he striveth, the greater will be his progress.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 81-82

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm sure that the vast majority of Muslims, Christians and Jews don't believe that the god who "revealed" himself through a 19th Century Muslim is the same god they worship. In fact I'd bet that the vast majority of Muslims, Christians and Jews have never even heard of Baha'i.

I'm sure Hindus would also be offended by your comment considering Hinduism is a major religion.

So what? What people believe does not make anything a reality. There are only two possibilities, logically speaking:

1. Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God, and there is only One God because He said so, or
2. Baha'u'llah was a false prophet, an ordinary man who lied.

We all have free will, so we are free to choose 1 or 2.
Wise people look before they leap. Others assume without knowing.

“If a man were to declare, ‘There is a lamp in the next room which gives no light’, one hearer might be satisfied with his report, but a wiser man goes into the room to judge for himself, and behold, when he finds the light shining brilliantly in the lamp, he knows the truth!” Paris Talks, p. 103

So close. All you had to do was take out the word "other".
Any god(s) that people believe in are imaginary gods because they do not exist in reality.

Got any proof of that? Otherwise, I would not state it as an assertion.

 

[Trailblazer]

So many Gods
guiding so many people
to so many Truths

You are correct, but logically speaking God cannot compete with Himself so there can be only One God and only one Truth.

“What “oppression” is greater than that which hath been recounted? What “oppression” is more grievous than that a soul seeking the truth, and wishing to attain unto the knowledge of God, should know not where to go for it and from whom to seek it? For opinions have sorely differed, and the ways unto the attainment of God have multiplied. This “oppression” is the essential feature of every Revelation.” The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 31

 

[Trailblazer]

93%??? You are assuming only one god is believed in.....

No, I am not assuming that... People believe in many different gods, but that does not mean there are many different gods... Beliefs do not create reality.

The reality is that here is only One God. Why would we need more than one Omnipotent/Omniscient God

 

[Trailblazer]

Which is why proselytizing is becoming illegal in some places, and I think that will increase. In my case it is a clear ONLY if they ask (persistently), and even then it'll go incredibly slow at first to determine if it actually might help the person. I'm careful as, it can cause a ton of confusion, and spreading confusion would be a horrid karma to bear. Of course this is a substantially different approach from all proselytizing religions.

In case you have not noticed, I never start threads to talk about my religion or any religion. I just like to talk about God because a lot of people like to talk about God. Of course sometimes that veers off into talking about my religion, but I just follow the flow of traffic. I only want to talk about what others want to talk about. Some people want to talk about Messengers of God, some don't. Some want to talk about Baha'u'llah, some don't. I am a firm believer in free will.

In case you have not noticed many people are already confused. I just respond accordingly, depending upon that person and what they say. I hardly ever have time to post to someone who has not posted to me directly. I am drowning in posts.

 

[Trailblazer]

IMO its not a question of should.

Imagine a system that streams electricity to an electric device.
Its not a question if the electricity should run through the cable and activate the machine, rather if the device is connected to the power source.
If you are connected to the power source, you get electricity.

The electricity is there, if you connect, you get it.
So on the same note, the data is available. you just need to "tune" your brain to understand the language of this communication.

I was asking something more specific and I did not clarify it well enough in the OP, so I might do so later... I was asking of God should reveal messages to everyone in the world -- every one of 7.44 billion people -- in the same way as God has revealed messages to Messengers, which are normally referred to as revelations.

But you are absolutely right about the electricity, if you are referring to God's Love. there needs to be a connection. that is a great analogy.

5: O SON OF BEING! Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4​

 

[Trailblazer]

No, never. God should never force his presence to anyone.

Excellent answer, just excellent.

 

[Sir Doom]

You are playing a Blue Smoke and Mirrors shell game. Meaningfulness and convincing may be just value judgments from your perspective, but not in a court of law.

This is not a court of law nor are we debating law or it's application.

However, I assure you based on historical record of false convictions that meaningfulness and conviction remain subjective despite our best efforts to mitigate that with rules. 12 subjective opinions do not result in an objective opinion, even if it is more objective. Do you honestly believe that everything entered into evidence must be treated as absolute truth by virtue of it's classification as evidence? Do you think there is some way to even suggest a jury can or should do that?

I will rest on science to when considering the reliability and provenance of ancient scripture as a witness of the reality of our history based the archaeological and historical evidence.

That's your right as a free thinking individual and I wouldn't have it any other way. Of course, what does or does not count as evidence does not hinge on you, only whether you find it meaningful, convincing, compelling, or otherwise worth your time. As scripture demonstrably fits the dictionary definition you so eagerly provided, I can't image why you'd continue to argue the point.

More shmooze and blue smoke and mirrors. Courts of Law and science have higher standards of evidence that are functioning in the real world. I consider your view of evidence severely deluded.

So you do not consider scripture to be "a body of information indicating the truth of a proposition." As the definition you supplied states? It certainly is a 'body of information' and it certainly 'indicates the truth of a proposition' even if that proposition happens to be false.

Consider for example that evolution has been used to erroneously indicate that 'we came from monkeys'.

'We came from monkeys' is the proposition.

Evolution is the body of information indicating the proposition is true.

The proposition happens to be false despite the presented evidence.

Does that mean evolution is not evidence? No, it means evolution is a body of information that indicates something else entirely and whoever interpretted the evidence to propose that 'we came from monkeys' made an erroneous conclusion.

Research away, remember you would be trying to use the references in the Bible as evidence to demonstrate history where there is not evidence outside the Bible. Such things as the Biblical Flood, literal Creation and the Tower of Babel come to mind as historical claims in the Bible that will not stand up in court nor the test of evidence in science nor archaeology.

Actually, all I have to do is show that the Bible has been entered into evidence more than once in more than one legal system to demonstrate it has been used as legal evidence before. Since that's all I proposed, that's all I need to indicate as true.

This has gotta be a joke of unbelievable proportions, Absolutely NO, the Bible has not been suitable for evidence in many many years concerning the reliability of the text in history. You are appealing to the medieval.

No, your are building a strawman. I never said anything of the sort. All I said is that the Bible has been entered into evidence. Don't worry, it's coming.

The Bible totally lacks the provenance and documented authorship to be used as evidence no further than those that claim by 'faith' to believe it so.

No further, huh? Sure about that? I don't take it any more seriously than you do, nor do I take those that believe on faith very seriously either. But that's me. I don't decide what words mean. We do that together. Therefore, it still counts as evidence whether I take it seriously or not.

I will be awaiting the response with your so to speak 'research.'

Are you suuuuuure?

 

[Trailblazer]

Great question.
I would imagine that if I heard a voice talking to me, I would have no idea whom it belonged to, and I think that would leave people more confused as they currently are.

The naturalist would conclude that ETs were using some form of technology to communicate with the earthlings.
The Devil worshipers would probably want to know what was going down, although it might be revealed to them.
Persons of various religions would probably assume that their various gods - whether Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, etc. - had begun talking to them.

The confusion, I imagine would be chaotic. Especially if certain instructions were heard from this voice, that people did not like. Their reaction might result in groups being singled out to be massacred. Some might even try to prove the voice is not God's, by committing sin on a greater level. So maybe that might prompt another question - Should God destroy all who don't listen and obey the voice?

I think the all-wise God knows exactly what is best, and does it.
The current method imo, seems to be working great.
As it was with me, I see people who seek to know the creator make changes in their lives for the better all because of a book that contains the greatest wisdom found anywhere.

No other book is available to more than 90% of the world's inhabitants. No other book has endured the tests of fire like the Bible.
I have not seen any other book that has had such a powerful effect on people's lives - overcoming drug addiction, immoral practices like prostitution, masturbation, adultery, pornography, homosexuality, etc, racial and national hatred, violent and hateful habits, abusive behavior and speech...

Look how it has influenced people so much that even these forums and others have rules against obscene and vulgar speech. Even many many sites have in their license agreement that vulgarity of any kind, whether in media or otherwise is forbidden.
That's the power of the scriptures.

I don't think the problem is with God not audible communicating. If he did, it would make no difference, imo. The problem is with proud stubborn hearts that are not willing to humble themselves like little children - thinking too much of themselves.
I mean, Pharaoh is an excellent example.

At the end, it's their loss. God is not going to lower his wisdom to their level, and he loses nothing. Millions love him - the little children, the teens, the young adults, the elderly, and there are all happy, just like their happy God... Jehovah.
[GALLERY=media, 8640]Happy by nPeace posted Aug 12, 2018 at 1:47 PM[/GALLERY]

The love and unity and unbreakable faith evident among Jehovah's people, is as a result of applying Bible truth in their lives.

Wow, what a great answer! There are no words I have to express how much I love your answer.

Now, I am going to confess... What precipitated this thread was an atheist I have been conversing with on another forum for over three years who insists that if god existed god would communicate directly to everyone on earth -- to 7.44 billion people -- so they would all know that God exists. He was once a Christian and pokes fun of Christianity, but he also refuses to accept the possibility of God using a Messenger (Prophet) to communicate to humanity. Finally, it is not acceptable to him that about 93% of people believe in God, most of them believe because of one of God's Messengers. He thinks that anything less than 100% is a failure on God's part. This is of course completely illogical because an Omnipotent/Omniscient God cannot fail. It is also illogical because humans have free will so the failure is on the part of humans.

I was not raised as a Christian and never read one word of the Bible until I came to forums about five years ago. I am a Bahai, and I know that the Bible is the Word of God because Baha'u'llah wrote that it is "God's greatest testimony to His creatures." I only wish I had more time to read it, I only know enough verses to be dangerous.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do you think that God should communicate directly to everyone in the world?

If you think God should do that, please explain why you think so.
If you think God should not do that, please explain why not.

Please explain the reasons for your answer.

Thanks, Trailblazer

Absolutely!

First, because, if He is God, He can easily do that,
Second, because if He does not, then we are left to try to decide who to believe He did communicate to, and who is only pretending,
Third, because if He is God, He knows precisely how to get around our own prejudices and make Himself clear, where prophets and scripture are hopeless at that, and
Fourth, because if He can't figure that out, and understand the consequences, which we know full well exist, of garbled dissemination of such important communications, then clearly, He can't be God.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Evolution is the body of information indicating the proposition is true.

The proposition happens to be false despite the presented evidence.

Fascinating, absolutely fascinating. Look at what you've written, "Evolution is the body of information indicating the proposition is true," followed by "the proposition happens to be false despite the presented evidence" …

Against which evidence you provide absolutely nothing but your own personal, unvalidated, unverified, unattested and untested opinion...apparently to be taken as true for no other reason than that you said so.

So a question, please....are you God, that you get to make such pronouncements?

 

[Trailblazer]

Absolutely!

First, because, if He is God, He can easily do that,

I am sorry but that is not a good reason, God should do that just because God can easily do that. God can also easily wipe out all of creation in a instant... Should God do that too?

Why should God do what some humans want God to do just because they want God to do it?

Why should God communicate directly to everyone on earth -- all 7.44 billion people -- when God can communicate with Messengers such that everyone has access to that information?

Second, because if He does not, then we are left to try to decide who to believe He did communicate to, and who is only pretending,

But that is exactly what God wants you to do, look at the evidence and decide... That is why God gave us all a brain and free will.

Third, because if He is God, He knows precisely how to get around our own prejudices and make Himself clear, where prophets and scripture are hopeless at that, and

But God does not want to get around our own prejudices, God wants us to get around our own prejudices... That is why God gave us all a brain and free will.

God made Himself clear in the scriptures. He made Himself even very clear in the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.
What reason do you have to think that God would be any clearer if God spoke to you directly? Baha'u'llah wrote down exactly what God revealed to Him in His Own Pen, can't get much clearer than that.

Fourth, because if He can't figure that out, and understand the consequences, which we know full well exist, of garbled dissemination of such important communications, then clearly, He can't be God.

There is nothing garbled about God's communications to Baha'u'llah, and for those who find them a bit too lofty to understand, we have what was written by the appointed interpreters of His Words, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi.

Let me ask you this; how much sense does it make for God to reveal every one of the over 15,000 Tablets that He revealed to Baha'u'llah to every one of the 7.44 billion people in the world, when God can reveal them to one Messenger?

God knows the consequences but they only affect humans. It is the humans who should try to understand the consequences of not getting God's message. It will not affect God if they don't get it because God is fully self-sufficient, above the need for any of His creatures or their belief.

 

[Sir Doom]

Fascinating, absolutely fascinating. Look at what you've written, "Evolution is the body of information indicating the proposition is true," followed by "the proposition happens to be false despite the presented evidence" …

Yes, the proposition 'we came from monkeys' is a false proposition.

Against which evidence you provide absolutely nothing but your own personal, unvalidated, unverified, unattested and untested opinion...apparently to be taken as true for no other reason than that you said so.

I am not saying evolution is false I'm saying 'we came from monkeys' is false. Evolution is as true as true gets as far as that goes.

So a question, please....are you God, that you get to make such pronouncements?

Dare to dream, eh? But, no. I happen to believe evolution indicates we came from some type of giant lemur, and that monkies likely came from the same. A subtle, but important distinction. I can also see how the erroneous conclusion could be jumped to. Lots of that going on here.

 

[Faithofchristian]

You are playing a Blue Smoke and Mirrors shell game. Meaningfulness and convincing may be just value judgments from your perspective, but not in a court of law. In the courts of law the objective verifiable physical evidence takes precedence over any possible conflicting subjective or anecdotal evidence. In fact if there is only anecdotal or subjective evidence in a court case it fails based on the legal standards of evidence.

I will rest on science, and actual historical, archaeological and paleontological evidence, to when considering the reliability and provenance of ancient scripture as a witness of the reality of our history based the archaeological and historical evidence. This objective evidence stands in a court of law, and the historicity of the Bible does not.



More shmooze and blue smoke and mirrors. Courts of Law and science have higher standards of evidence that are functioning in the real world. I consider your view of evidence severely deluded.



Research away, remember you would be trying to use the references in the Bible as evidence to demonstrate history where there is not evidence outside the Bible. Such things as the Biblical Flood, literal Creation and the Tower of Babel come to mind as historical claims in the Bible that will not stand up in court nor the test of evidence in science nor archaeology.

This has gotta be a joke of unbelievable proportions, Absolutely NO, the Bible has not been suitable for evidence in many many years concerning the reliability of the text in history. You are appealing to the medieval.

The Bible totally lacks the provenance and documented authorship to be used as evidence no further than those that claim by 'faith' to believe it so.

I will be awaiting the response with your so to speak 'research.'

Do you really believe that I care what man's courts of law will say.

You seem to think for some unknown reason, that just because you don't believe what is written in the bible, you seem to think that other people should automatically jump to your side with you, That's not reality.
Just because you wish to jump off the cliff, does not mean other people are going to jump with you. That's life.

 

[shunyadragon]

Do you really believe that I care what man's courts of law will say.

. . .but nonetheless you are misrepresenting courts of law and the concept of evidence in Law, Science, History, archaeology, and paleontology.

You seem to think for some unknown reason, that just because you don't believe what is written in the bible, you seem to think that other people should automatically jump to your side with you,

No, that is not the issue here. Our disagreement is the nature of evidence.

That's not reality. Just because you wish to jump off the cliff, does not mean other people are going to jump with you. That's life.

This indeed a fallacy. Can you guess which one.

You simple failed to address the post and the issue of evidence in courts of law, science, historical, archaeological, and paleotological in relation to the Biblical claim of factual history.

The Three Stooges: Duck, Bob and Weave.

 

[Faithofchristian]

. . .but nonetheless you are misrepresenting courts of law and the concept of evidence in Law, Science, History, archaeology, and paleontology.



No, that is not the issue here. Our disagreement is the nature of evidence.



This indeed a fallacy. Can you guess which one.

You simple failed to address the post and the issue of evidence in courts of law, science, historical, archaeological, and paleotological in relation to the Biblical claim of factual history.

The Three Stooges: Duck, Bob and Weave.

I gave you the evidence, if you can not accept it, that's no fault of mine.

For some unknown reason, you think a Christian should step out side of the Bible. Well that's not going to happen here.

As a Christian all my evidence is base on the bible, but seeing you can not handle it, that's no fault of mine.

 

[nPeace]

Wow, what a great answer! There are no words I have to express how much I love your answer.

Now, I am going to confess... What precipitated this thread was an atheist I have been conversing with on another forum for over three years who insists that if god existed god would communicate directly to everyone on earth -- to 7.44 billion people -- so they would all know that God exists. He was once a Christian and pokes fun of Christianity, but he also refuses to accept the possibility of God using a Messenger (Prophet) to communicate to humanity. Finally, it is not acceptable to him that about 93% of people believe in God, most of them believe because of one of God's Messengers. He thinks that anything less than 100% is a failure on God's part. This is of course completely illogical because an Omnipotent/Omniscient God cannot fail. It is also illogical because humans have free will so the failure is on the part of humans.

I was not raised as a Christian and never read one word of the Bible until I came to forums about five years ago. I am a Bahai, and I know that the Bible is the Word of God because Baha'u'llah wrote that it is "God's greatest testimony to His creatures." I only wish I had more time to read it, I only know enough verses to be dangerous.

Thanks.
I'm glad it was useful at least, It is the truth - tested and proven.
However, there are still persons who will argue against those fact - no matter how many millions of people give testimony.
...and you can argue till the cows come home, it wouldn't make a difference.

When the genocide of 1994, occurred in Rwanda - an event that will long be remembered in history, and about 800,000 people were brutally hacked to death, by members of the Hutu ethnic majority, Jehovah's Witness of the Hutu people were protecting the brothers of the Tutsi people, at the risk of their own lives.
That was so, because the Bible changes lives of those who apply its teachings.
When one has such solid evidence before their eyes, what more do they need. A miracle? That alone is a miracle.

When you have members of rival gangs - bitter enemies, leaving that life behind them, and becoming brothers in love - because of applying Bible principles... that's a miracle.
When persons who love to fight, and enjoy battering someone to a pulp, becoming like a lamb, and not even lifting a finger when someone strikes them... that's a miracle.

Then seeing how that reaction in turn softens the heart of an opposer... it has the effect of leaving you dumbfounded.
Persons who have prayed about a situation that seems impossible, and seen an almost instant change of the situation, don't need anyone to tell them God is.
It has been tested and proven time and time again.

People who don't believe... Well, the scriptures say, it's the heart.
They don't see anything because their heart is not inclined toward righteousness.
Remember Jesus' illustration of the seeds that fell on the various soil?
Remember what Paul said regarding the different type of people?
He said there will be those who draw away from God - not that the don't believe, but they open the door of their heart to wickedness.
Hebrews 3:12 . . .Beware, brothers, for fear there should ever develop in any one of you a wicked heart lacking faith by drawing away from the living God;

It can start by first drifting - what they feed their minds on, who they keep company with.
Hebrews 2:1 . . .That is why it is necessary for us to pay more than the usual attention to the things we have heard, so that we never drift away.

It can end in their finally turning away from the living God. Galatians 1:6; 2 Corinthians 11:3, 4; 5:7

Three years is a long time. I hope you weren't debating the same thing for those three years.
Remember Matthew 7:6-14. Think about it.
Remember how many persons were saved in the ark. 2 Peter 2:5
Think about that.

One who turns away from God, makes that choice.
It has nothing to do with if they hear God's voice audibly or not.
Think of the situation with Cain and Abel. Remember God warned Cain. He hear a voice, but rather that make an effort to change his heart from jealous hatred to brotherly love, he went ahead and slaughtered his brother.

Can you imagine how many "Cain" would slaughter the "Abels" of today - despite hearing God's voice?

Glad to know you see the value in the Bible.
Don't let the thorns of this world choke out the word, by not taking the time to read it.
Thank for sharing with me. I appreciated it.

 

[nPeace]

I am sorry but that is not a good reason, God should do that just because God can easily do that. God can also easily wipe out all of creation in a instant... Should God do that too?

Why should God do what some humans want God to do just because they want God to do it?
Well said.