In a recent, friendly exchange with a skeptic he brought up the complaint I've heard from other skeptics. "Why doesn't God talk to you?" The suggestion (generally, if not this commenter specifically) is that if God spoke (apparently audibly because, well, if He just spoke to you in your brain that would be unverifiable), well then He'd be believable. And, of course, He hasn't spoken audibly to people since, well, the Bible days I suppose. So since the days of the Bible, God has been pretty ... unbelievable.
I am not looking for a clever argument. I'm not trying to provide clear evidence or offer an apologetic here. I'm not trying to prove anything at all. I'm just wondering ... does God ever talk to you?
I've had experiences along those lines. They aren't numerous. There is no "voice from heaven", no audible sound, no thunder and lightning and all that. But there have been times when I've spoken to God and I have known without a doubt that He has spoken back. Sometimes His answers have been circumstantial. That is, I've asked for x and received x or asked for y and been refused y and I can say, "That was an answer from God." But there have been those times when it was an answer in words. Almost always it has been in the form of a passage from Scripture, which helps me a lot because I am not one of those Charismatic types who is hanging on to "a word from God", some sort of "special revelation". No, these ones were most often a recalled passage that I didn't really remember at all but came back to me in direct response to what I had asked, answering the question perfectly. On extremely rare occasion, I've had an answer that completely caught me off guard and was not from Scripture. I remember once I was leaving on a trip and asked God, "Please take care of my family while I'm away." I got an unmistakable response. "Did you think it was you who was taking care of them when you were there?" Message received, God. Thanks.
So I'm just wondering. Do you concur with the skeptic who complains, "Why doesn't God speak?"? I'm not asking for cogent arguments about what's wrong with their complaint. I'm not asking you to even defend your answer. I'm just asking, does God ever talk to you?
14 comments:
Years ago, in my "yoot", several of us were cruising around during the Christmas season. We were buzzed, as we were want to do, and the subject of attending midnight mass was broached by one of us stoners. Several in the group heckled the one who suggested this diversion, including the driver, and as if on que, we hit a pothole. This blew out, not one, but two tires on the car. The timing and severity of this event was all the voice from God we needed. We changed one tire, had the other repaired and remounted, showered, changed into suits, and by midnight were the five of us aligned in the same pew at St. Marceline's.
Yes, God speaks to me. Not as often as I'd like but I know most of the time I talk to Him, I'm insulting His intelligence. So I don't blame Him for ignoring me at times.
Similar to your experience, He plants that external idea in your mind after you've asked a question. I know it's external because it's an idea that never would have occurred to me. More substantial was my encounter almost nine years ago with that light above my bed. That was as real to me as this keyboard I'm punching on.
There are also the stories and poems that have come to me while I sleep that fascinate me. Many times I've written down the story while scratching my head, only to find it had a more profound message than I would ever be capable of producing on my own strength.
He speaks all right. The question is, Are we listening?
Ha! Your story is great, Marshall!
At no time recently have I heard God speak to me, unfortunately, but I definitely have in the past.
For me it most often has been in the form of what I call "hounding". I have referred to God as "The Hound of Heaven" to a few people, which is not meant to be disrespectful in any way. I can only assume He hounds me because He must know that's what it takes to get through to me. "Out of the blue" (not really, but that's what it seems) He will speak someone's name or a situation into my thoughts and then proceed to hound me with that name or "thing" over and over and over again. Whatever IT is, it's stuck in my head to the point of being impossible to ignore.
I learned a long time ago to begin praying as soon as this person or situation is introduced into my thoughts. This isn't anything at all unusual for believers, I don't imagine. (Or is it?)
His voice interrupts my thoughts, but nobody else can hear it. I certainly was NOT thinking about that person or thing before he/she/it just all of a sudden came to mind. It had to have come from somewhere and there is no doubt in my mind it was from my Lord. No doubt.
Maybe about 8-10 times in the years I've known the Lord I could have sworn I have heard an audible call of my name, but that's all, just my first name. It's been startling because nobody was ever around to have said it and I always seemed to know what He was wanting to tell me via that extremely simple thing. Funny the power in a merely speaking name sometimes, huh?
Sometimes it was only to remind me of His presence, that I ought to be considering Him and His power or what I already knew was truth (via His word) in whatever it was I was going through at that time. Sometimes it was just Him telling me to stop it, the way a parent sometimes only need say your name (except that human parents usually tack on our seldom used middle names at such times). He wanted to get my attention, and I both needed and got that. Oh, how awesome it is every time God speaks! More... I want it much more.
I want to add, too, that God communicates with both my husband and I via things just too frequent and too "coincidental" to be anything but supernatural. The post asks us readers if God talks to us. No, not exactly do we hear Him during these particular events, because He's not making use of His own voice. He's utilizing other people's voices.
I can't tell you how many times (hundreds?) my husband, I, or both of us together have JUST been reading or discussing a particular Bible verse, passage, or topic and the next morning in church or even an hour later our pastor will speak on THAT exact thing. It's uncanny. It has happened so many times over the years that we now just glance over at each other as if to say, "He's doing that again!"
The Bible is a BIG, long book. For the exact verse(s) we were just discussing to be brought up the very next time we're in church is just a bit odd without GOD having something to do with that, wouldn't you say? We love it when that happens. It's just confirmation that He heard us talking or saw what we were reading.
We love it when we discuss sermons with friends afterwards and often each one of us got something entirely different from them, something tailor-made from God just for us individually, even though we were all sitting there listening to the same man! Only GOD can do that!
And, in spite of my frequent usage of caps and exclamation points, this is coming from someone not easily impressed, not prone to sensationalism, or strong emotional displays. Such messages from God as these DO rather quietly blow my mind however.
A former coworker who was raised in Utah spent quite a bit of time in 2008 and 2009 witnessing Mormonism to me via email. One of my first questions to him was whether the Mormon deity (“Father” was how the fellow usually referred to the deity) spoke audibly to him. The first answer I got was yes, indeed He does. But I did some tests that this Mormon man failed, and this led to him falling back to a position that Father talks to him, but it is in a “still small voice.” I asked him what sorts of things he can discern through the still small voice, and he told me that it is plenty good to assure him that the LDS church has the correct beliefs.
I think it was in 2009 that I posted a comment to Stan about this statement by the Mormon. Stan’s response to me was so memorable that I can quote it verbatim, I think: “Yeah, right. Sure. Absolutely no evidence for it.” I probably uttered a “Right on!” when I read that at Stan’s site, because it is the hardheaded skepticism that I admire.
Not to beat a dead horse, but Stan and I had quite a conversation last week on whether the death brought on by sin was biological or not. In what Marshall Art might be pleased to see as one of those potholes-in-the-road moments, the folks on ‘Focus on the Family’ were briefly on that topic when I tuned in at lunchtime today. The two hosts were talking to Dr. John Townsend, who has written a book called ‘Where Is God.’ One of those three men—I didn’t catch which one—said that his wife had had a miscarriage, and it led to him pondering why such things are allowed by God. One answer that was given on that program today was that when Adam and Eve sinned, “A crack in the world appeared, and things didn’t work the way they used to.”
That reminded me of something Bob Larson liked to say on his Christian radio program back in the 1990s: When Adam and Eve sinned, “a wave of sin” emanated from them and corrupted the environment, such that organisms were no longer perfect.
That is right in line with the teaching of the church of my youth. They claimed that a good God would not create a biosphere that was imperfect right off the bat; it took humans to mess it up. No organisms suffered injury, illness or death prior to the act of sin by a pair of humans. Young Earthism is pretty much forced on those who read Genesis that way.
When I laid that on Stan, Stan told me that it is a misreading of Genesis, and that the death that came to the world was “spiritual death,” not biological death.
If anybody who comes here to read this hears directly from the God of the Bible, why not take a moment to ask Him which interpretation He intended? Let me know if you get an audible answer.
Sprinkling versus immersion might well be trivial enough doctrinally that the choice of how to go on it falls under what Stan calls “Christian liberty.” But consider the schism (Catholic vs. Protestant) on whether the priesthood should marry and reproduce, or the schism on whether married couples can use birth control. That decision has a lot bigger impact on a believer’s life than the decision on what baptismal technique to use, I think you will agree. Is it really praiseworthy of God to refrain from speaking correction to whichever side is getting those life-changing things wrong?
--Lee
Lee,
You understand, of course, that there is nothing which constitutes "proof" to you, right? I mean, if I believe that God "speaks to me" (although I wouldn't begin to suggest that it's audible), you will deny it. "Yeah, right, that's what the Mormon guy said." If I say that I'm fairly confident on my theology, you will retort, "Why don't you ask God and let Him speak to you and tell you which is right?" The burden of proof to you is unreachable. God must remove all suffering, answer all questions, remove any doubt, and, well, I'm pretty sure there are a few other favors you'd like as well. As long as He's not willing to meet those demands, you're not willing to admit the possibility.
Your a priori assumption that God does not speak to people is not proof. On the other hand, just because two people claim "God does speak to me" and conclude different things does not mean that both are necessarily wrong. Logically, both could be wrong or one could be wrong. But that's not allowed, is it? So you make it your goal to assure everyone that no God exists ... while you assure everyone that you believe no such thing. (You just don't know, right?) To you, it seems, faith is ... unreasonable. It is unreasonable for me to line up all the evidence I find, conclude that it makes sense, and make the logical conclusion that there is indeed a God. If your experience (with what sounds like false Christianity) leads you to believe that there is no such thing as true Christianity or an actual God -- if your only possible approach is to pile up an impossible list of demands that this so-called God must meet to satisfy your burden of proof -- then it seems only logical that no such thing will ever occur.
You can certainly keep dismissing out of hand any belief, but will that actually get you answers about what is or isn't true? Can you, for instance, offer an alternative, rational basis for morality, a reasonable explanation of origins, the slightest hint of comfort for suffering people? Or is it your view that the only logical conclusion is that morality has no genuine basis, everything came from nothing, and "bad things happens ... get over it"? You don't find anything rational or reasonable in people of faith unless all questions are answered to your satisfaction. Are you rational about what the lack of such faith leads to?
By the way, I didn't suggest that "that was a misreading of Genesis" ... since the claim doesn't come from Genesis. Trying to paint people into impossible corners based on the claims of other people isn't a helpful technique for arriving at truth.
I have heard it said that sleep deprivation and food deprivation can bring on hallucinations. I wonder if the biblical instruction to fast and pray without ceasing stems from an implicit awareness of that bit of human behavior thousands of years ago. Would a believer interpret the hallucination in terms of the theology that he or she already ascribed to? I am guessing maybe so, because about three years back Fox News had a brief story about a terrorist who claimed that Allah materialized in his prison cell to give him legal advice. I don’t recall that the story said the prisoner was on a hunger strike or that he had been deprived of sleep by noise or anything, but I imagine that could have been the case. Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus had an experience that some modern folks believe could be an indicator of temporal lobe epilepsy. I can speculate that the “thorn in the flesh” that he wrote about having was periodic epileptic fits, but his writing does not go into any details about it, so it truly is speculation on my part.
Back in 2005 I heard Dr. James Dobson say that he had asked God to reveal to him if Harriet Miers was the right person for the Supreme Court Justice position. As a result of Dobson’s prayer request, God “sent men to me,” as Dr. Dobson put it. The men told Dr. Dobson that Miers was indeed the right person for the job. There were mounting concerns even among Republicans that she did not have enough knowledge of constitutional law. She wound up asking to be released from the nomination process. There are at least two ways that you can look at this:
1) Ms. Miers was God’s person for the job, and God did send men to confirm it to Dr. Dobson, though God did not want to speak it directly to Dr. Dobson’s ear with His own voice.
2) Ms. Miers was NOT God’s person for the job, and both Dobson and the men “sent” to Dobson were wrong in thinking God had given His approval.
Stan wrote: “Can you, for instance, offer an alternative, rational basis for morality…”
I have been putting together some thoughts on this, gathered largely from a book I read early this year. I will probably post them at my own blog site one of these days, rather than plopping an extensive comment at your blog.
Stan wrote: “By the way, I didn't suggest that ‘that was a misreading of Genesis’ ... since the claim doesn't come from Genesis.”
I admitted I am rusty on the Bible. Since we were discussing the Garden of Eden story, I thought we were pretty well confined to the early part of Genesis. Is the Eden story fleshed out elsewhere in the Bible? Please elaborate on the point you are making if you have the time.
Stan wrote: “The burden of proof to you is unreachable.”
There were a few people at the church of my youth who said God told them things of a nature that would have required spoken English to be utilized by God. (Ask me about this if you are interested in an example.) In my mid teens I asked God in prayer to include me among those He speaks guidance to. After some time went by (months, I would say), there was no voice from God to me. I then prayed to God like this: “Lord, You may have some reason why You have not gifted me with hearing Your Holy voice. But some people in my church claim to have that gift. Would you please speak this sentence “_______________” to one of them, or to any Christian in my community, and instruct that person to pass it on to me?” I still remember the sentence these decades later, and I can assure you nobody has spoken it to me. I was careful to choose a sentence that had no theological content to it, so that God could not use the excuse that the sentence was wrong or blasphemous. Is that the sort of thing you mean by an “unreachable burden of proof”?
--Lee
Lee,
You have begun, as seems inevitable in most cases, to move beyond "discussion" to ridicule. Not that you offered valid reasons for it. You've simply dropped the "let's discuss this" ball and picked up the "poke fun for no apparent reason" bat. So ... I'll address this last one, but if this is the best you can do, you might as well stop.
You referenced the clear and cogent biblical command to "fast and pray without ceasing". One small problem. No such command exists. Nice. But that becomes your reason for ridiculing the possibility that God might speak to anyone at all ... from the position of someone who claims to not know if God exists. Your best argument is that God must not speak to anyone because Dobson was wrong. As it turns out, it appears that the only argument you have to make is that God doesn't speak to people. He doesn't tell them why He made the world the way He did. He doesn't speak to them audibly to clear up any vague notions of theology. He doesn't ... jump through the hoops that you deem necessary. Bad God! Bad, bad God! In fact, as far as I can tell all your arguments are like that. "In my experience people haven't been what I thought they should be and, if there is a God, He's not measuring up to my expectations." For some odd reason you've decided that since God cannot be weighed by your yardstick, He must not be. You understand, I hope, that these are really poor arguments, full of logical holes, and not actually addressing the point.
Oh, on the Genesis thing, you referenced Romans 5 -- that death entered through Adam. That doesn't appear in Genesis ... anywhere.
Stan wrote, “…to move beyond ‘discussion’ to ridicule…”
Stan’s blog is in my top 5 places to visit on the Net, so I hope I don’t get banished for coming across as a pest I remember what a turnoff Madalyn Murray O’Hair (spelling?) was with her condescending attitude toward believers, back when I was a believer. Andrew Tallman has noted that Bill Maher comes across as belittling, and that isn’t likely to change the hearts and minds of believers. I agree with Tallman. I tuned in to Fox News last week and found Bill O’Reilly debating Maher on politics and religion. Maher was true to form, I’d have to say. Here is a link to videos of that debate:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html
(As an aside, I note that O’Reilly told Maher that the Noah’s flood story was “allegorical.” Just out of curiosity, I will ask Stan if that is how he reads that passage.)
I like to think that the comments I post at Stan’s site are best described as “firm” or “provocative,” but not “insulting” or “condescending.” But I suppose I am not a neutral-enough observer to really know if I am crossing some line of politeness.
I have posted at Net forums where I get flamed because I am not way over on the extreme political Left like they are, so I know how it feels to be on the receiving end of discourtesy, for what that’s worth.
Stan wrote, “I take hyperbole to be hyperbole. I don't require that, when Mark wrote, ‘The whole city was gathered together at the door’, that every man, woman, child, cat, and dog were standing outside.”
Stan also wrote, “You referenced the clear and cogent biblical command to "fast and pray without ceasing". One small problem. No such command exists.”
Here is what I had in mind when I wrote that comment about fasting and praying. An essential point of the New Testament is to instruct Christians to be like Christ. Luke 4 says that for 40 days in the desert Christ fasted (and I presume prayed as well, for we are told He prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane). So when I write, “fast and pray without ceasing,” you are invited to take that as hyperbole for, “fast and pray for 40 days.”
Stan wrote, “It appears that the only argument you have to make is that God doesn't speak to people.”
The "reliable communication problem" is a big issue, probably at the top of my list. If some sheep in a flock head up the hill during a lightning storm, and others go to the river, and yet others run for the foliage, a distant observer watching through binoculars might reasonably conclude that there is not a shepherd around to keep them going the same way.
I am always glad to give other arguments, though. I am one of the people who tend to the alley cat who lives in back of the office where I work. Today he let out a yowl and scurried away from the food dish. We think that even though the food was nice and soft, he has some sort of impacted tooth or something that caused the pain, and we may take him to a veterinarian if this continues. Christian apologists make the case that human suffering is compatible with the Christian god, but they rarely address the issue of non-human suffering. On the rare occasions that they do, I don’t find them convincing.
--Lee
Getting banned requires more work on your part. But I could end up just not posting a comment or two if it says the same thing you've said repeatedly. Could.
On the Flood, the book of Genesis is written in the form of historical narrative, so I take it as such. "Allegorical" becomes seriously problematic. If Noah was allegorical, then Adam and the rest of the key players in the book are allegorical, and Jesus was just way confused because He seemed to think it was actual history. Too bad, Jesus (you know, God Incarnate). Nice try. Too bad you didn't know your stuff. Interestingly, I have seen and read items from science that point to evidence of all sorts of historical stuff claimed in Genesis, including the Flood. Since they stand in the way of prevaling science which requires "no God", they are problematic, aren't they?
Would you presume that Christians, attempting to follow Christ's example, would be required to fast 40 days in the desert?
Here's the problem with the "reliable communication" problem. You wield it like the standard skeptic does. Each devoted skeptic has what I like to call "a kill shot". They think they have the key point that proves that Christianity is wrong. For most it's the whole "evil" thing. You know, "How could a good God allow evil?" (Like the poor cat you brought up.) Yours is this whole "God hasn't provided the specific words that I required, so He must not exist." You base this in your experience and in the fact that some people make the claim only to be proven wrong. Now, there is no reason at all to assume that God would deign to succumb to the whims of His creation, but that's the demand -- from most skeptics. "God must explain to my satisfaction why it is that things are not arranged as I think they should be." As for your "God doesn't speak" kill shot, that whole "look at how many have made the claim but were wrong" thing just doesn't work ... in logic. Here, let's try a benign example. Lots of men are jerks. In fact, in the experience of some women, all the men they've encountered were jerks. The only possible logical conclusion is that all members of the male gender are jerks. QED! That, of course, is poor logic. It is a jump, a leap of faith. Oh, no, that's not right, is it? It is a standard logical fallacy called the Generalization Fallacy. And it doesn't prove the point. God hasn't spoken audibly to you; therefore, God doesn't speak at all to anyone under any circumstances.
Funny thing. It is my deep and abiding suspicion that if you actually found a "flock of sheep" who all went the same way, you would likely conclude that they were coerced or deluded. That is what I meant by "unreachable burden of proof".
Stan wrote, “… asked God, ‘Please take care of my family while I'm away.’ I got an unmistakable response. ‘Did you think it was you who was taking care of them when you were there?’”
If you drive the highway from Cottonwood to Camp Verde you may see a flower vase near a bridge abutment, not far from Thousand Trails Road. About three years ago a Baptist minister and his son were killed in a head-on collision there. No doubt you could list similar incidents, and you must have thought long and hard about how that fits into your belief system. Any thoughts you care to share about this are appreciated.
Stan wrote, “Funny thing... you would likely conclude that they were coerced or deluded.”
Nicely done! That was a response I didn’t anticipate, and that is a good example of the sort of clever comeback that keeps me coming back to your site.
:-}
-Lee
Please, tell me what are your demands of God. Is it your demand that a God who exists would never allow someone to die? Or is it that He would allow infidels to die, but not believers? But, of course, that would open Him up to accusations of favoritism, so that can't be it. Is He obligated to do whatever it is that His creation asks of Him? Obviously He's supposed to speak to whomever asks with whatever words they ask in the medium they ask for. What else does He have to do? In regards to this Baptist minister and his son, what would you categorize as "acceptable" if there was a God? If death is allowable, is there a satisfactory age or condition? (You know, as opposed to "he died before his time" -- that kind of thing.) In regards to animals, how about them? Is it your belief that a genuine God would not allow any pain, any suffering, anywhere or anywhen? I'm just curious about the standard God has to meet for you to say, "Well, okay, maybe".
I am not sure to what degree your October 7 questions were meant to be rhetorical, but in the interest of brevity, and since I have been promising to wrap up my thoughts on a couple of your topics, I will just respond by welcoming a Christian to pray like this: “Lord, You have tasked us with the sublime chore of spreading the good news of the gospel to all mankind. I ask that if You must release Your protective hand from the driver of a vehicle, let it be the agnostic Lee that You remove it from, not a driver who is acting in good faith to fulfill Your Great Commission.”
--Lee
Interesting viewpoint. Me? I figure that if a believer (especially one intent on doing God's will) dies, it's a big plus for him (or her). We believe "to live is Christ and to die is gain" (a quote from Paul). You, on the other hand, are not in such a good condition. So while you might prefer it that people who already have a functioning relationship with God be protected while people who reject such a thing be eliminated, I'd much prefer that those without hope remain a little longer. At least it lengthens the time that God has to wake you up.
(Bottom line, though, is that I do not believe that anyone dies "before his time".)
Post a Comment