Why is communication with God one way?

[marco]

Communication with the Christian deity seems one directional. If we try many times to contact someone and get no answer what should we assume?
The person is annoyed with us? The person has gone or is dead? Our method of contact is faulty - maybe a wrong number?

In the case of God what is the explanation for communication being only one way?

[marco]

The period when the Catholic church was arguably, most powerful is often referred to as "the dark ages"

If burning manuscripts had been the norm we would not have the many tomes the Church has made available to researchers. One swallow does not make a summer, or an instance a rule.

The "Dark Ages" was thought to refer to the spread of barbarism after civilisation's fall when Rome declined. We had barbarian tribes move from Asia and across Europe, down through Spain and Italy and into north Africa. But the meaning of "Dark Ages" is that we know so little about them; the great literature of Rome and Greece dried up and we struggle to guess what went on. The light of learning shone in monasteries built by the RC Church. The Catholic church represented civilisation.

When Attila the Hun moved to destroy Rome he was turned back when he met an impressive Pope Leo. It is wrong to suppose that, because we dislike an institution, everything it has done was bad. I'm sure that Jehovah's Witnesses have, somewhere, done some good as has the Catholic church.

If God is all powerful he is as capable of using a Pope to be a witness for him; humans quarrel with imperfect tools but God, surely, works through imperfect instruments to perform his wonders. Or so I was told, once upon a time, in the "dark ages" of my Catholic boyhood.

[JehovahsWitness]

If God is all powerful he is as capable of using a Pope to be a witness for him...

If God is all powerful he is also capable of destroying what the bible calls the whore of Babylon for her bloody, filthy history of oppression, political prostitution and institutional lies and corruption. Her sins, the bible says, will not be forgotten.

But yes, I agree, an all powerfull God is as capable of using a Pope.



JW



RELATED POSTS

What did Pope Francis apologise for?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 816#929816

Did the Catholic Church compile the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 566#838566

Did the bible really fight to survive?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 878#820878

[marco]

If God is all powerful he is also capable of destroying what the bible calls the whore of Babylon for her bloody, filthy history of oppression, political prostitution and institutional lies and corruption. Her sins, the bible says, will not be forgotten.

It is interesting to note, in the 21st century, that people still employ silly terms like "whore of Babylon" as if we still drove chariots to the supermarket. All countries, all powerful institutions have acted in their own interests. In common with all religions, the Catholic Church has been driven by blind faith. New breeds of modern times, with small flocks and blue eyes, may not have centuries of history or claims of power and they are excused from extremes only by their infancy, but they too, following the dictates of their leaders, make horrible mistakes. When we surrender our reason to unseen forces we can expect calamities, and we get them.

Had God been any kind of good director he would have illuminated any institution set up to worship him. But communication is always one way. If the Pope apologised, then it is surely a sign of the man's goodness, not an indication of silly "whoredom."

[1213]

You mean they contradict your interpretation of what is in the bible. The RC Church takes biblical statements and acts on them; others take the same statements to mean something else. How do we decide which view is correct, if any?

But why have interpretations at all and not take the message as it is said and explained in the Bible?

You cannot possibly accept that graves opened up and corpses walked out at some point in human history, 2000 years ago. So when Matthew describes other miracles why would we believe him?

I believe things went as the Bible tells.

[1213]

Can someone say that with 100% certainty that no other religion has a declared message?

I can say with 100% certainty that they dont have declared it to me.

Just to clarify: are you referring to any of my arguments, or of other people? Im willing to listen to claims that I use strawman arguments, as Im not an especially skilled debater - but I reject any claim of lying on this forum.

Dont worry, you are probably one of the best and at this point I have not much to complain about you, except these following two points.

Creation myths abound - so much so that Genesis contains two of them

If we are accurate, there is only one creation story, that what is in Genesis 1. Genesis 2 is not literally a creation story. It is a story of how God (Yahweh) formed or planted things. Forming and planting is not same as creating. Also, Genesis 1 speaks of Elohim creating, while Genesis 2 has Yahweh. And one theory is, Yahweh may actually be son of the one and only true God (Elohim).

In the beginning God [elohiym] created [bara' baw-raw'] the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1

Yahweh God formed [yatsar yaw-tsar'] man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Yahweh God planted [nata naw-tah'] a garden eastward, in Eden, and there he put the man whom he had formed
Genesis 2:7-8

And obviously it is possible that you just dont know what the Bible tells and repeat someone elses claims. That is why I think it is possible that you dont intentionally make false claims. But, I count you claim generally as straw man argument or/and lie from atheists. At the best case I think it is very willful ignorance. And it is quite annoying that this kind of claims are constantly made, even after many corrections. Sometimes this feels like Groundhog Day. But again, it is not necessary your fault.

has borrowed from other religions in part

The problem with that is, you cant prove that claim. I dont see any good reason to accept it. But obviously, if I would be a bitter atheist, I probably would shamelessly make such claims. (This doesnt mean I think you are that kind of atheist).

[1213]

even Christ reaffirms that you can't find your way into the afterlife without the faith of a child.
...

Please show the scripture that tells so? Otherwise this becomes like believing in Santa Claus.

[marco]

But why have interpretations at all and not take the message as it is said and explained in the Bible?

Do you read the Bible in its original form? Even that involves an interpretation. When I read a foreign language there are always questions of interpreting what was intended. And those who gave us the KJV had their own ideas.

Language is notoriously awkward to pin down:

"You will be very lucky to get James to work for you" has two entirely different meanings, one complimentary to James and the other not. We discuss at length what is meant by "generation" and we dispute the literal meaning of the phrase: "This is my body". Was Jesus making Peter the first Pope when he said: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church"? You can read it as many times as you like but interpretation is required.

I believe things went as the Bible tells.

Then I am certain you are wrong in so believing. It would have been impossible for Mathew to trace Jesus back to Adam. Even if we accept corpses stumbled out of the ground, how on earth does anyone identify the walking cadavers as "holy men"? Matthew was being stupid. I am sorry and surprised you believe him.

[PghPanther]

even Christ reaffirms that you can't find your way into the afterlife without the faith of a child.
...

Please show the scripture that tells so? Otherwise this becomes like believing in Santa Claus.

You will find plenty right here and some that pertain to exactly my point.

https://www.openbible.info/topics/faith_of_a_child

[Diagoras]

Can someone say that with 100% certainty that no other religion has a declared message?

I can say with 100% certainty that they dont have declared it to me.

Well, the best we can say is that we have one data point supporting this claim. It remains unresolved.

Dont worry, you are probably one of the best and at this point I have not much to complain about you

Thank you.

If we are accurate, there is only one creation story, that what is in Genesis 1. Genesis 2 is not literally a creation story. It is a story of how God (Yahweh) formed or planted things. Forming and planting is not same as creating. Also, Genesis 1 speaks of Elohim creating, while Genesis 2 has Yahweh.

It seems not all Christians fully agree with your interpretation. Heres an example of someone attempting to explain the two accounts, and he clearly identifies them both as creation accounts. Interesting that the difference in literary styles and likely divergent origins is highlighted, which only further supports my previous point about cultural crossovers.

However, Im willing to grant you that the first two chapters in Genesis could be interpreted as being separate aspects of the same creation myth. It doesnt really refute my wider point that there are multiple creation myths around the world, and that many of them - including Christianity - have borrowed elements from each other.

And obviously it is possible that you just dont know what the Bible tells and repeat someone elses claims.

If I dont know something about the bible, then Ill try to find it out. Either by reading it or finding some other source. I do actually make an effort to seek out different sources (e.g. the Genesis article linked to above), but obviously find more common ground with atheists views. Im open to becoming better informed.

That is why I think it is possible that you dont intentionally make false claims. But, I count you claim generally as straw man argument or/and lie from atheists. At the best case I think it is very willful ignorance.

Im now wondering what the worst case is...

And it is quite annoying that this kind of claims are constantly made, even after many corrections.

Would you accept that this statement applies equally to claims made by theists?

The problem with that is, you cant prove that claim. I dont see any good reason to accept it. But obviously, if I would be a bitter atheist, I probably would shamelessly make such claims. (This doesnt mean I think you are that kind of atheist).

<bolding mine>

Please dont ascribe such negative emotions or supposed responses to groups of people - even if hypothetical. Whenever groups are labelled negatively, it opens the door to their societal denigration and persecution. If you want to accuse me of being bitter or shameless - thats ok, we can have that debate. But I dont speak for all atheists, and certainly dont believe bitter or shameless in anyway describes them collectively.

I may have wandered slightly from the OPs topic (sorry), so will try to stay focussed on that from now on.

[marco]

If you want to accuse me of being bitter or shameless - thats ok, we can have that debate. But I dont speak for all atheists, and certainly dont believe bitter or shameless in any way describes them collectively.

I may have wandered slightly from the OPs topic (sorry), so will try to stay focussed on that from now on.

You have made your point correctly and relevantly - there is no need to attach pejorative adjectives to groups who are discussing here. The OP is about communication and if we cannot correctly communicate with each other, there's little hope of reaching the heights of heaven in our supplications.

We have yet to see evidence of a returned email from God. I'm sure that would raise a smile of surprise on the face of Mr. Dawkins.