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?

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 39 by 1213]

Hi, 1213.

Well, I could easily go and ask one of my Hindu friends, but I’m fairly certain he’d be just as certain of the existence of his gods as you are of yours. But have you ever explored any other religion to compare different gods before coming to your decision?

It’s not only the bible that tells of other gods. See here, for instance. Maybe the other gods are doing very well, and are willing to talk to you if only you’d listen.

If the bible is for ‘all people’, then how come geography is so highly correlated with religious practices? And how come it’s so intolerant of so many people other than the ‘chosen few’? Here’s a list of the estimated number of people killed by God. I’m quite sure that Buddhism could claim to be for ‘all people’ more convincingly. Or Taoism.

And if you think Tyr was just like an ordinary man, then you can’t have read the Norse tales properly. He sacrificed his arm to ensure Fenrir the wolf could be chained, and his legacy is of one who stands for bravery, law and justice.

Although, he did apparently later die of his wounds fighting Garm the helldog, so perhaps offering prayers to him would be stupid, as you say. Since he died in battle, that would mean he’d end up in Valhalla, but since that’s possibly already part of Asgard (where he lived), then I’m not sure exactly what changed for him.

As I said, all very confusing. It must be nice to have so much certainty about gods - I could never seem to manage it.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 6 by William]

If he spoke directly to me or you then the element of faith would be gone thats for sure. To have faith requires some amount of doubt. Christians only believe in God because of Jesus (physical being) had they ACTUALLY belived in God himself Jesus wouldn't have been necessary for them. Their holy book would be the Hebrew Scriptures. But it isnt. Not really.

Why it even says " by him [Jesus] do believe in God. Christians have faith in Jesus. They dont have the faith of Abraham though the Christian testament tries to say it does

"CURSED IS THE MAN THAT MAKETH FLESH HIS ARM AND WHOSE HEART DEPARTETH FROM THE LORD"

Exactly WHAT is so blessed about 'faith?' Faith is simply belief in something you can't prove. One can have faith that a frog will turn into a prince or that the Earth and all its creatures were created in six days. One can have 'faith' in any foolish or ridiculous thing. There is nothing good about faith in and of itself. Faith has led men and nations to destroy whole cultures and millions of innocents. 'Faith' is just another word for 'prejudice.'

[Avoice]

[Replying to marco]

The voice in the christian testament is unidentified. The one who spoke to Moses identified himself. You cant say the voice at Jesus' baptism was the God of israel. Not with truth you can't. Those who claim it is the God of Israel only wish it to be. Hand a Hindu or Buddhist the paragraph about the voice from heaven speaking and see who they say it is.

The fact that Christians believe it is God puts Christians under the law of Jesus. Everything jesus commanded they MUST DO. And if you havent read his reciculous stuff. Love thise who hate you. Give to those who ask (they can give me $100 each) if someone wants you to wslk a Mile walk two etc) THEY MUST KEEP THESE COMMANDMENTS. JESUS CSNT SAVE THEM IF THEY BREAK THOSE. JESUS IS SAID TO ONLY SAVE PEOPKE FROM LAWS BROKEN UNDER THE FIRST COVENANT

Christians better hope that isn't God's voice. If it is they are then jesus cant help them if they disobey him

[marco]

Christians better hope that isn't God's voice. If it is they are then Jesus cant help them if they disobey him

The human ingredient that Jesus, rightly or wrongly, offered was love and fellowship to all, not just a few members of some tribe. The hero Samaritan in his story comes not from God's favourite tribe, but he is one despised. I am not here to defend Jesus, for he does that far more powerfully than can I, but he injects into the coldness of Scripture human warmth. "No one condemns you; nor do I" as opposed to "Take your daughters and have them stoned." And instead of Abraham sending his son into the wilderness, we have a story of a son returned from his guilty ways, being embraced by a grateful, loving father.

We may find follies in the NT - and I hold my hand up here - but there is more humanity in the two words "Jesus wept" than in the entire tale of Exodus. It may be that Yahweh is indeed the kind Father Jesus suggested and he has been maliciously portrayed by his biographers but when it comes to a simple choice of Scripture's way or Christ's - people with beating hearts choose Jesus.

Perhaps, dear Avoice, you will some day take tea with a proper Christian who offers to pay and shakes your hand for your indulgence. In return you might feel inspired to say: "Merry Christmas." If you wish to condemn fairy stories, then make it a total condemnation instead of ignoring the first few hundred pages of myth and magic. Go well.

[1213]

… But have you ever explored any other religion to compare different gods before coming to your decision?

Interesting difference between Bible God and others is, only Bible God wanted that the message comes also to me. All though I live quite far from Israel.

It’s not only the bible that tells of other gods. See here, for instance. Maybe the other gods are doing very well, and are willing to talk to you if only you’d listen.

It is interesting that “the Vedas contain hymns, incantations, and rituals from ancient India�. Bible contains basically the history of Jews, the law, and also that what will happen in future. The law and the future are (allegedly) message from God. Hymns, incantations, and rituals are just things that some people do. That is why, for me, Bible is much more meaningful, it has a message from God. Obviously, we can argue is it truly from God, but at least it tries to be that. And by what I see, it is has been correct previously and I have no reason to doubt it is correct also about our future. Others really have nothing as meaningful.

If the bible is for ‘all people’, then how come geography is so highly correlated with religious practices? And how come it’s so intolerant of so many people other than the ‘chosen few’? Here’s a list of the estimated number of people killed by God. I’m quite sure that Buddhism could claim to be for ‘all people’ more convincingly. Or Taoism.

Yes, I can accept that Hinduism accepts anything and therefore is for many people. I think it is not good to accept everything. And I think it is good that in the Bible the line is between righteous and unrighteous. If unrighteous would live eternally, it would make life eternal suffering for all, and I don’t think it would be good. But I understand if unrighteous people don’t like it.

And if you think Tyr was just like an ordinary man, then you can’t have read the Norse tales properly. He sacrificed his arm to ensure Fenrir the wolf could be chained, and his legacy is of one who stands for bravery, law and justice.

Allegedly in modern time many people sacrifice parts of their body for other people, for example kidneys. Some people sacrifice even their whole life in wars, defending their people. So, Tyr could have been a brave man, but I don’t think he would be much greater than many humans.

[Diagoras]

It is interesting that “the Vedas contain hymns, incantations, and rituals from ancient India�. Bible contains basically the history of Jews, the law, and also that what will happen in future. The law and the future are (allegedly) message from God. Hymns, incantations, and rituals are just things that some people do. That is why, for me, Bible is much more meaningful, it has a message from God. Obviously, we can argue is it truly from God, but at least it tries to be that. And by what I see, it is has been correct previously and I have no reason to doubt it is correct also about our future. Others really have nothing as meaningful.

One could argue that you haven’t fairly acknowledged the full richness and diversity of sacred Hindu texts with that comment. For instance, did you see that the Upanishads contain philosophy (how to ‘reach the truth’), and the Puranas hold the history of the universe, cosmology, geography and the genealogy of kings? Various texts deal with the law, such as the Law of Manu (equivalent to Christian’s Adam) and the Sacred Laws of Âryas. And when compared to biblical works of poetry such as Psalms and the Song of Solomon, there exist the longest written poems in human history: the Mahabharata and the Ramayana - the latter described as a moving love story with moral and spiritual themes.

I freely admit to also being wholly ignorant of all of these texts, but to dismiss them as having ‘nothing as meaningful’ seems to be an argument from ignorance.

Yes, I can accept that Hinduism accepts anything and therefore is for many people. I think it is not good to accept everything. And I think it is good that in the Bible the line is between righteous and unrighteous. If unrighteous would live eternally, it would make life eternal suffering for all, and I don’t think it would be good. But I understand if unrighteous people don’t like it.

<bolding mine>

I’m not 100% certain what you mean with this (bolded) comment, as I thought one of the more powerful messages from Christianity was the offer of salvation for anyone who was willing to turn to Jesus. And I’m also not sure how it follows logically that everyone would suffer eternally if the unrighteous got to live eternally? Maybe the ‘truth seeking’ parts of Hindu texts similarly distinguish between those who genuinely wish to live a good and truthful life, and those who don’t? Can you see that it’s not that easy to be sure that different religions don’t draw a similar line as you described?

Allegedly in modern time many people sacrifice parts of their body for other people, for example kidneys. Some people sacrifice even their whole life in wars, defending their people. So, Tyr could have been a brave man, but I don’t think he would be much greater than many humans.

Fenrir was a demon-wolf who was thought capable of swallowing the sun. I’d back Tyr over any human when dealing with that kind of problem. No wonder they gave him a whole day of the week.

Of course, we treat the tales of Tyr and other Norse gods as just that: tales. Often very moral tales, but tales just the same. Do you ever consider that every religion is treated the same way by a sizeable number of people? There’s no religion that is followed by 51% of the world’s population, so they’re all just ‘fanciful tales’ to the vast majority.

Part of earning respect for one’s worldview is surely showing equal respect for the worldviews of others.

[1213]

…I freely admit to also being wholly ignorant of all of these texts, but to dismiss them as having ‘nothing as meaningful’ seems to be an argument from ignorance…

I don’t think so, because if there is truly meaningful message, I think it would be declared so that even I could receive it without trying to find something meaningful from ancient Hindu scriptures. The Bible message is brought to me and by what I see, it is also brought to all over this world. I don’t think that would happen, if there would not be a meaningful and important message.

I’m not 100% certain what you mean with this (bolded) comment, as I thought one of the more powerful messages from Christianity was the offer of salvation for anyone who was willing to turn to Jesus.

Yes, but Bible doesn’t accept everything. It offers way to life for all people. But that doesn’t mean all things are accepted. Bible tells there are many things that are not accepted. Many things can be forgiven, but people should reject wrong things.

Can you see that it’s not that easy to be sure that different religions don’t draw a similar line as you described?

To me it is quite easy to see.

Part of earning respect for one’s worldview is surely showing equal respect for the worldviews of others.

I don’t require respect from others, especially if they think my world view or I am not good. I hope people are reasonable and think is something good and then receive it and if the matter is not good in their opinion, then it is ok if they reject it.

[marco]

The Bible message is brought to me and by what I see, it is also brought to all over this world. I don’t think that would happen, if there would not be a meaningful and important message.

Is universality a mark of truth? The RC Church claims universality. Should we all be Catholics? The Bible was adopted by the West. Here's a report from 1811, in London:

"Yesterday morning Hepburn and White were executed for an abominable offence, at Newgate prison. After a few moments' prayer the miserable wretches were launched into eternity." Their offence - being gay. Their condemner - the Bibe, the book you honour.

Yes, but Bible doesn’t accept everything. It offers way to life for all people.

Or a road to death, for some. Earlier old women were drowned for being witches. Again, their condemner was the Bible. A book cannot be good and bad at the same time.

[Danmark]

Or a road to death, for some. Earlier old women were drowned for being witches. Again, their condemner was the Bible. A book cannot be good and bad at the same time.

In what sense do you think the Bible, a compilation of books, cannot be both good and bad? My initial reaction is that it can and is. Even Paul, who is not a favorite of mine, famously wrote a beautiful description of Love. Jesus told several 'good' parables about caring for others and ignoring tribal distractions.

On the other hand, there are many passages that exemplify the evils of tribalism, with God as cheerleader. These include killing children, among others, simply because of their heritage.

Would it be more accurate to say, "One cannot rely on the Bible to recommend 'good' behavior simply because it has the imprimatur of "The Bible."

[Diagoras]

I don’t think so, because if there is truly meaningful message, I think it would be declared so that even I could receive it without trying to find something meaningful from ancient Hindu scriptures.

If we removed the word ‘Hindu’ from your statement, it could equally apply to anyone who couldn’t find meaning in ancient scriptures - whether they are from Hinduism, Islam, Christianity or anything else. What if one of the meaningful parts of its scripture is the importance of seeking the truth and persevering? Perhaps no-one deserves to be given the message if they are not yet willing to work hard to achieve it.

I hope people are reasonable and think is something good and then receive it and if the matter is not good in their opinion, then it is ok if they reject it.

Of course, people should be free to accept or reject any belief, and to decide based on as little or as much thought as they wish. Many atheists who have ‘deconverted’ from Christianity have put a lot of thought into the ‘message’ they received, and ultimately decided for themselves that it’s ‘not good’. I would hope you agree that they are being ‘reasonable’ when they do so.

You seem confident that Christianity’s message is somehow very different from other religions, but when it comes to concepts such as righteousness, serving God, and emphasising the spirit over the material, you may find that the message is more or less the same. Not surprising since appropriating beliefs and concepts from other cultures is a very human thing (c.f. The Epic of Gilgamesh) and religion itself predates Christianity by a long way.