Why does God communicate ambiguously?

[sojourner]

Then god created us with a flaw if we can't understand what it wants. if that's the case, surely god would fix that flaw, if it was serious about communicating with us. Looking around at all the "correct" or "right" religions, that's not the case.
So that leaves us with, as you put it, our inability to understand god. And god wants us to get to heaven. So everything we understand about said god/heaven isn't what god really wants us to understand so it's pointless and worthless.
A god that creates us, allows us to become imperfect to the extent we can't fully understand it, then punishes us for not doing what is right (aka its will) doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Oh let's just call it like it is: it doesn't just not make a lot of sense, it's a stupid flawed concept coming from a supposedly perfect entity.
Why worship it then?

Not at all. God is God and we are part of creation, created with autonomy. And I think we do have a pretty good idea of what God wants. God wants relationship.
I'm not arguing for a "correct" or "right" religion. Take a second look: You're the one doing that. Religions are "right" or "correct" if they foster an atmosphere wherein we can build relationship with God. For the most part, religions do that.
"Understanding God" in the minutae of some sort of as-yet undefined specific "communication" is far different from having a broad understanding of what God wants from us.
"Everything we understand is wrong" is a gross generalization and a straw man argument. Of course it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You've designed it to not make a whole lot of sense. Congratulations.

Yes. Let's do just call it what it is: A bunch of cheap conditions forced upon a Deity by someone who has little clue about theology.

 

[nrg]

Why do you assume that there's only one "correct" interpretation that God "wants us to receive?"

There doesn't have to be just one, actually. It could be unique for every single one of us. What I mean is the message that is meant to reach the recipient is correctly deciphered.

Is his "interpretatin" based upon solid theology and biblical scholarship, expressed through healthy relationships within a faith community?

If you ask him, yup. But, if the methods of theology are just as rigorous as the scientific method, it could be easily checked. "Healthy" and "faith community" needs to be well defined too before we can check that.

How do you know God intends to disseminate any information?
Maybe God's just looking for a relationship with us.

Everything is information. Making himself known is sharing information and in fact doing anything is to share information. Information that can be interpreted, and in the case of David Koresh, Joseph Kony and many others, I guess you would agree that they can be misinterpreted?

God doesn't usually speak to "us." God usually speaks to "me" and "you." And what God tells me may be completely different than what God tells you. When I talk to my wife, I communicate different things than I do when I deal with someone at work, for example.

"Us" usually means "me" and "you" and was used as a general term to refer to any reciever. Wether or not every message is meant for everyone, I make no reservations of.

Yeah, but you're assuming that it's God who's unclear. Perhaps it's our ears that need cleaning out, or our understanding that's lacking. There are always two responsible parties in any communicative exchange, you know.

I've never said anything else. A child is also responsible for understanding and listening to the parents, but good parents use simple words and clear voices to make sure that child knows what the parent is saying. I don't see why God doesn't do the same for us, so we're all aware of what he's saying.

Then how are you so sure that God wants "us" to "do" anything?

I'm not, I'm not sure if he wants to deliver a message at all less have a relationship with me.

The claim (at least from an orthodox Christian standpoint) is that we have a theological understanding of the creative process. There's a big difference. I don't believe that "God has said how creation happened."

Actually, there doesn't have to be any difference at all. If all the data that is used in the theological studies are obtained through the actions or relationships of God, God has "said how creation happened". I used the word "say" as in "convey information detailing it".

You're presuming that all religious people are the same as the ubiquitous religious fundies you see on this forum. We're not.

Nope, not in the slightest. The thread doesn't adress every single religious person or even the majority, necessarily. It can be easily deduced from the opening post.

You think God should have "a message" for "everyone?"

No, it could be individual. So long as every person understands what God is saying.

I don't believe God is ambiguous in the slightest in what God communicates. Our understanding of what is communicated may be fuzzy, but that's a different topic.

Actually, no. We're his target demographic and he could make it understandable to us.

Sure, if God created us to be puppets. Clearly that's not the case, though.

So, you're my puppet if I convey information to you that is totally unambiguous? "2 + 3 = 5 - 0", for example, cannot be misinterpreted only misunderstood. Have I forced you to do anything?

"Do their best" does not imply "perfect."

So? You only rob people of their freedom if you can convey information perfectly? Please clarify.

 

[sojourner]

There doesn't have to be just one, actually. It could be unique for every single one of us. What I mean is the message that is meant to reach the recipient is correctly deciphered.

How do you know it isn't?

Everything is information. Making himself known is sharing information and in fact doing anything is to share information. Information that can be interpreted, and in the case of David Koresh, Joseph Kony and many others, I guess you would agree that they can be misinterpreted?

Anytime humans are involved, there is a high probability of miscommunication.

I've never said anything else. A child is also responsible for understanding and listening to the parents, but good parents use simple words and clear voices to make sure that child knows what the parent is saying. I don't see why God doesn't do the same for us, so we're all aware of what he's saying.

Sometimes, though, kids are just willful and don't have any intention of understanding -- no matter how their parents spell it out. I suspect that's what's going on here.

I'm not, I'm not sure if he wants to deliver a message at all less have a relationship with me.

Then what are you on about?

No, it could be individual. So long as every person understands what God is saying.

Isn't that up to the individual?

Actually, no. We're his target demographic and he could make it understandable to us.

How?

So, you're my puppet if I convey information to you that is totally unambiguous? "2 + 3 = 5 - 0", for example, cannot be misinterpreted only misunderstood. Have I forced you to do anything?

What if I'm using a different base? Are you going to force me to use base 10?

So? You only rob people of their freedom if you can convey information perfectly? Please clarify.

No. What I'm saying is that human beings are autonomous and cannot be forced to understand what they do not want to understand.

 

[connermt]

Not at all. God is God and we are part of creation, created with autonomy. And I think we do have a pretty good idea of what God wants. God wants relationship.
I'm not arguing for a "correct" or "right" religion. Take a second look: You're the one doing that. Religions are "right" or "correct" if they foster an atmosphere wherein we can build relationship with God. For the most part, religions do that.
"Understanding God" in the minutae of some sort of as-yet undefined specific "communication" is far different from having a broad understanding of what God wants from us.
"Everything we understand is wrong" is a gross generalization and a straw man argument. Of course it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You've designed it to not make a whole lot of sense. Congratulations.

Yes. Let's do just call it what it is: A bunch of cheap conditions forced upon a Deity by someone who has little clue about theology.

Condescension is the first act of someone who's threatened. Beyond that, it looks a lot like semantics and excuses in the favor of god. If someone says "god wants a relationship with us" then also says "we can't understand a perfect being since we aren't perfect" it stands to reason that we can't truly understand said god since it's perfect (that is, if it is), and the only way to understand it is to be made perfect, which we aren't.
It's a circle with no end and no beginning. Like said god. More spoon fed non-sense.
It does make sense to someone who wants to understand it though (or so they say), even though they don't truly, but claim to in order to save face for their non-existent deity whose concept was "borrowed" for a number of other religions in the area of its creation and evolved throughout history to match with individual society. It's a manner in which they try to reassure themselves that they are right, even when they aren't sure or just don't know.
Likewise, if religions are supposed to be worshipping the same deity, yet have different views (on the same deity) and all claim to be the right one (not something I personally claimed, mind you), how can they all be right? They can't. One is right, the others are wrong. That is, even IF there is one that's right/correct to begin with.

 

[nrg]

How do you know it isn't?

I don't. I don't even know if there is even the slightest bit of communication between me and God, if he even wants me to acknowledge his existance or if he wants anything. So, if he did mean to initiate a relationship, or make me aware of the fact that I have to initiate a relationship, that information was not correctly deciphered by me.

Anytime humans are involved, there is a high probability of miscommunication.

Yep, if only we had a creator, who could've seen all the problems that were about to happen and fix them beforehand.

Sometimes, though, kids are just willful and don't have any intention of understanding -- no matter how their parents spell it out. I suspect that's what's going on here.

I'm not talking about disobedience the way kids do. Kids know the meaning of the word "no", they don't chose to suddenly become oblivious of the meaning, they chose to simply ignore it. That, the parents have no control over but they do have some control over whether or not the kids will understand what they say. God is omnipotent, so he has complete control. No matter how many flaws we have.

Then what are you on about?

Unless God wants me to not know anything about him, this should be impossible.

Isn't that up to the individual?

You don't really have that much control over what you understand. You speak English, so you will understand this sentence, you can't just lose your skills as a reaction to this message, preventing it from ever reaching through. You can, of course, chose to ignore parts of it and not reflect over it, but you cannot chose whether or not you will understand what I'm writing. Annars kan du gärna välja att förstå det här, utan Google Translate.

How?

I don't need to tell you how, he just can because he's omnipotent, even though limited minds can't go into detail about it. That's well within the definition.

What if I'm using a different base? Are you going to force me to use base 10?

What if I did know? What if it was a fundamental fact that you do use base 10, or at least understand how it works, and that you use the standard notation of arithmetic? Am I using you as my puppet when I say "2 + 3 = 5 - 0"?

No. What I'm saying is that human beings are autonomous and cannot be forced to understand what they do not want to understand.

God can, he's omnipotent. Or, if he doesn't want to force you, he could explain it in ways that you already understand.