Does it make sense if God stops talking?

[Trailblazer]

How does one distinguish "God in a Human Form" from a supremely kind, intelligent, loving, compassionate individual?

Another good question is how God can take a human form. If God took a human form, God would no longer be God. God would be a human.

 

[dybmh]

Another good question is how God can take a human form. If God took a human form, God would no longer be God. God would be a human.

I leave that to God. I would not place any limits on it. Although I think it is easy to test a person's status. Meher Baba had the right idea, though. Less said, least mended.

 

[Trailblazer]

I leave that to God. I would not place any limits on it. Although I think it is easy to test a person's status. Meher Baba had the right idea, though. Less said, least mended.

Yeah I know. I tend to use logic and reason, but all bets are off as to what God can do!

 

[vulcanlogician]

I hate to be "that guy" who sees himself as an exception to all presented poll options, but I don't fit in any of the poll options.

My answer would be... provided God exists... "Yes. God can do whatever he wants."

 

[Trailblazer]

I hate to be "that guy" who sees himself as an exception to all presented poll options, but I don't fit in any of the poll options.

My answer would be... provided God exists... "Yes. God can do whatever he wants."

Indeed, provided that God exists God can do whatever He wants.
(P.S. That is expressly stated in the Baha'i Writings, but it is also logical. Why wouldn't an All-Powerful God do whatever He wants to do?)

 

[sayak83]

How does one distinguish between the "direct communication" with "God" and "direct communication" with "a reflection of themself"?

Examples of "a reflection of themself" would be:

• their subconscious
• what they have been taught to expect from this sort of encounter
• what they desire God to communicate to them
• any inner subjective experience

Well, in one word, expertise. Every skill requires training in order to use properly and to remove false positives and false negatives out. In that way a spiritual skill is no different than the skill required in handling a telescope in an observatory or bird spotting.
Taking Mystical Experiences Seriously

 

[dybmh]

Well, in one word, expertise. Every skill requires training in order to use properly and to remove false positives and false negatives out. In that way a spiritual skill is no different than the skill required in handling a telescope in an observatory or bird spotting.
Taking Mystical Experiences Seriously

I don't see anything yet relating to my question.

How does one distinguish between the "direct communication" with "God" and "direct communication" with "a reflection of themself"?

Examples of "a reflection of themself" would be:

• their subconscious
• what they have been taught to expect from this sort of encounter
• what they desire God to communicate to them
• any inner subjective experience

How does one distinguish between the "direct communication" with "God" and "direct communication" with "a reflection of themself"?

First, one needs to define God, then the the connection, then what it means to be direct.

Your link sends me to a forum post where you are describing a mystical experience. What does that have to do with God?

As most of you know that much of Eastern religions (I am thinking of Hinduism, Buddhism etc.) are based on insights that have come from what are called "mystical" experiences of their practitioners.

An insight is an inner subjective experience.

Now, these mystical experiences had been the outcome of a certain set of meditative practices like yoga, dhyana, mindfulness meditation etc. A typical response of many secular people is to dismiss these experiences as constructs of the mind under these practice regimes and hence devoid of veridicality. However, several decades of research and scientific study has now been made on the impact of these practices on the body and mind of the practitioners and they show, quite unequivocally, that even short period practices of these lead to extremely beneficial effects on the health and mind

So, because yoga, dhyana, mindfulness meditation are healthy, you're saying that this means that yoga, dhyana, mindfulness meditation are a direct connection to God?

 

[Bthoth]

Meher Baba made the extraordinary statement that he was God in Human form, The Avatar of the age come to end the terrible dark age and ring in a new creation. After a lot of reading about his life, various books, talking with people etc I accept him as such.

What was so good about his message/movement?

 

[Truthseeker]

I can't vote since I reject that assumption. There are no chosen ones imo. 'God' is available for direct 'communication' to anyone.

What is your basis for believing there are no "chosen ones"? God is available for communication to everyone, I believe, but we can delude ourselves that in a particular experience He did so. People have done that often. Perhaps your experience convinces you that at some points He has done so with you, based on the surrounding evidence.

 

[Quintessence]

But how does a person know it is God that they are communicating with? That is a question nobody can answer. They can only believe, they cannot know.

Again, experience. It's not a question nobody can answer. When you've determined what it is you regard worthy of worship - when you know who and what your gods are - it really isn't that difficult with practice, experience, listening.

I mean, if you want to relegate all human knowledge to "belief" in an extreme sort of agnosticism, you can, I guess. I got tired of that long ago. It's just not practical.

 

[Quintessence]

How is what you described distinguished from any of these? What was written about cultural elders is a reflection of themself, as listed above in bold blue.

Here's the problem with your list - literally all human experience is subject to what you listed. All of it. And I am just done with that level of extremist agnosticism. It invalidates all human experience and all human knowledge, from sciences to arts to our personal memories. I'm not interested in something so impractical. If you abandon the impossible notion that human experience has to somehow not be human experience - if you trust in your life experiences like basically every human does through the course of their lifetime - suddenly you can meaningfully distinguish between a tree and the sky, a chair and a potato. Or your personal inner voice and something that seems to be... otherwise.

 

[dybmh]

Here's the problem with your list - literally all human experience is subject to what you listed. All of it. And I am just done with that level of extremist agnosticism. It invalidates all human experience and all human knowledge, from sciences to arts to our personal memories. I'm not interested in something so impractical. If you abandon the impossible notion that human experience has to somehow not be human experience - if you trust in your life experiences like basically every human does through the course of their lifetime - suddenly you can meaningfully distinguish between a tree and the sky, a chair and a potato. Or your personal inner voice and something that seems to be... otherwise.

Agreed. However the method for distinguishing between external phenomena and inner subjective experience needs to be established in this case. The individual I was replying to claims anyone can have a direct 'connection' to 'God' ( they used single quotes ). Without distinguishing between extrenal phenomena and the inner subjective experience, each of these "anyone" could be connecting to a different god or none at all and no one would know the difference.

Ultimately, the problem is, imo, we in the abrahamic construct are considering a very specific god. But, the individual I was replying to was very likely over-laying their version of god onto ours and conflating them while simultaneously sharing their opinion of their tradition's superiority. ( I find it ironic considering the complaints that are made about Bahai, and the OP is Bahai ). It's easy to understand that if the expectations of 'God' are reduced significantly, then these lowered standards and lowered expectations produce universal accessibility. It's absolutely true: Anyone can have a direct connection to 'God', if 'God' is an inner subjective experience.

There is shared language and concepts between hindu and abrahamic philosophies of, lets call it, prophecy, if one probes deep enough into it. The ideas and analogies of "reflections" exist in both frameworks. The difference seems to be that in the abrahamic perspective the "mirror" is recognized accurately for what it is, the "images" that are produced in the "mirror" are accurately recognized for what they are, and the "self/Self" is not the object of our attention regardless of how attractive it is.

 

[Trailblazer]

The Baha'i belief is that God never communicates directly to any ordinary humans. This position is supported by the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

“To every discerning and illumined heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress. Far be it from His glory that human tongue should adequately recount His praise, or that human heart comprehend His fathomless mystery. He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His Essence, and will remain in His Reality everlastingly hidden from the sight of men. “No vision taketh in Him, but He taketh in all vision; He is the Subtile, the All-Perceiving.” 1No tie of direct intercourse can possibly bind Him to His creatures. He standeth exalted beyond and above all separation and union, all proximity and remoteness. No sign can indicate His presence or His absence; inasmuch as by a word of His command all that are in heaven and on earth have come to exist, and by His wish, which is the Primal Will itself, all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being, the world of the visible.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 98

“Immeasurably exalted is He above the strivings of human mind to grasp His Essence, or of human tongue to describe His mystery. No tie of direct intercourse can ever bind Him to the things He hath created, nor can the most abstruse and most remote allusions of His creatures do justice to His being. Through His world-pervading Will He hath brought into being all created things. He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His own exalted and indivisible Essence, and will everlastingly continue to remain concealed in His inaccessible majesty and glory. All that is in heaven and all that is in the earth have come to exist at His bidding, and by His Will all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being. How can, therefore, the creature which the Word of God hath fashioned comprehend the nature of Him Who is the Ancient of Days?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 318

The Baha'i belief is that God only communicates to His Messengers, who are pure and stainless Souls who have a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself.

“And since there can be no tie of direct intercourse to bind the one true God with His creation, and no resemblance whatever can exist between the transient and the Eternal, the contingent and the Absolute, He hath ordained that in every age and dispensation a pure and stainless Soul be made manifest in the kingdoms of earth and heaven. Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself.” Gleanings, p. 66

 

[Bthoth]

What is your basis for believing there are no "chosen ones"? God is available for communication to everyone, I believe, but we can delude ourselves that in a particular experience He did so. People have done that often. Perhaps your experience convinces you that at some points He has done so with you, based on the surrounding evidence.

Pharaohs, king, queens........even kim jung un was anointed.

 

[sun rise]

That would include the belief that I am important enough for God to communicate directly to me, if people believe that.

God, the God within us, "communicates" with us all the time. Communicates not in an ordinary speaking sense but as the sunlight communicates with the Earth. Or to use another image, as the ocean communicates with the drop of the ocean.

 

[Trailblazer]

God, the God within us, "communicates" with us all the time. Communicates not in an ordinary speaking sense but as the sunlight communicates with the Earth. Or to use another image, as the ocean communicates with the drop of the ocean.

I call that inspiration, not communication, but what's in a word? The following prayer is a prayer I say every day.

I adjure Thee by Thy might, O my God! Let no harm beset me in times of tests, and in moments of heedlessness guide my steps aright through Thine inspiration. Thou art God, potent art Thou to do what Thou desirest. No one can withstand Thy Will or thwart Thy Purpose.

The Báb

 

[Yazata]

Well, I don't personally believe in a God that talks to humans or dictates supposedly holy books or whatever.

But sure, it's possible to invent theological theories about why such a God might have grown more quiet with time.

The first that comes to my mind is that God wants humanity to mature, as children mature into adults. Adults guide small children all the time, but as children grow older, they spend more and more time on their own.

Perhaps God wants to see whether humanity has it within itself to guide itself without being led by the hand by a divinity. Maybe God wants all of us to grow up.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Assuming there is a God, who always communicated with humanity through chosen ones, and had some commands and teachings. Regardless of what the chosen ones are called, Prophets, Buddhas, Manifestations or whoever.

Given the assumption, I voted "no" and would add that there is zero reason to presume that it would make sense.

 

[sayak83]

I don't see anything yet relating to my question.



How does one distinguish between the "direct communication" with "God" and "direct communication" with "a reflection of themself"?

First, one needs to define God, then the the connection, then what it means to be direct.

Your link sends me to a forum post where you are describing a mystical experience. What does that have to do with God?



An insight is an inner subjective experience.



So, because yoga, dhyana, mindfulness meditation are healthy, you're saying that this means that yoga, dhyana, mindfulness meditation are a direct connection to God?

You are arguing positions similar to the ones I refuted before. All experiences are inner subjective experience. One cannot have an "outer" non subjective experience. What is called objective reality is an inferred construction by comparing speeches and writings about multiple inner subjective experiences among multiple experiencers. This inferred objective reality is assumed to have a "truth weight" for future action guidance based on its experienced utility regarding improving quality of experienced life and anticipating how future experiences will be.
Properly trained spiritual seeker's inner subjective experiences about God or mystical unity/ transcendence have all these features and hence why should they not be considered as true?

 

[sayak83]

What is your basis for believing there are no "chosen ones"? God is available for communication to everyone, I believe, but we can delude ourselves that in a particular experience He did so. People have done that often. Perhaps your experience convinces you that at some points He has done so with you, based on the surrounding evidence.

Having chosen ones violate God's neutrality. The ultimate reality does not have favorite people, favorite species, favorite planet or favorite universe or favorite futures. It's like saying a tree favouring one of its leaf or one of its branches over another.