Why Does God Only Speak Through Humans?

[dianaiad]

Fine. Then why didn't God write the book himself? A real deity would not need men to write his "message" down for him, he would write the book himself and give it to humans directly.

Question...and please don't take this the wrong way; it's not meant as an insult, but as a serious inquiry.

Who are you to decide what a 'real deity' would do or not do? If there is one, S/HE/IT will be who He, She or It is, without any consultation with you. Why would He (for convenience's sake...I'm a theist and I believe that God is a He) worry about what you think, or comply with what you think He should do or be?

The real question, then, is...is there a God? You know that Muslims believe that God Himself DID write the Quran, dictating it to Mohammad, who in turn dictated it to scribes, since he himself was illiterate. The rest of us Abrahamic types believe that God...er...
Amos 3: 7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

The problem you have here is that when God speaks to someone, that someone becomes a prophet. That's what makes him (or her, whatever) a prophet. So I believe that God speaks to some, and they relay the information to us, and we can confirm that information through prayer and the answer to it. Very efficient system, actually. In sum, I believe that a 'real deity' would do it that way because there is a 'real deity,' and that's how He does it. I'm sure not going to second guess a deity or tell Him how He should REALLY do things.

Indeed, that seems to me like the epitome of arrogance, not to mention hubris. I mean, seriously.....would you tell a top surgeon that a 'real doctor' would use a different method of cutting into someone, when you are, say, just graduated from grade school?

One expects a 'real deity' to know what He is doing, even if we don't.

 

[InChrist]

This is generally true in the 21st century. In other historical periods, however, there were many large groups of people who had never heard of Christianity or Jesus. Native American tribes come to mind as an immediate example. There was never a documented occurrence of a Native American who wrote about/believed in the Christian religion before the European missionaries arrived. Now, if the God of the bible were real, and wanted people to believe in him, and had the power to save people, he would not need to wait for Christopher Columbus. He could have delivered the message of Jesus directly to the Native Americans. But he didn't. Funny coincidence, huh?

No, I don't think it's a funny coincidence. I think God chose to reveal Himself to humanity in purposeful, historical context, using real people and places : HIStory. First, the nation and prophets of Israel, the coming of Christ to the earth Himself in Israel at a specific time period, then the writings of the apostles and early Christians and continuing on with the testimonies and changed lives of believers ever since. Besides, in the past I have read accounts of missionaries telling about natives people sharing dreams and/or visions from God they had before the missionaries ever arrived. So until you do a complete investigate on the subject I don't think you can claim such cases never occurred.

 

[dfnj]

If God were an objectively real being, why would he need to use men to write the bible, rather than writing it himself? Why would he speak through "prophets" rather than speak directly to mankind? It would be very easy for God to reveal his existence. He could simply directly communicate with humans, rather than needing intermediary humans to reach humans. The fact that no one ever hears about God directly from God is to me, one of the biggest pieces of evidence against the existence of God. A real god would not need to speak through human "prophets" and holy books written by humans. Yet every religion is traceable back to a human, not to an actual deity.

Let's consider a specific example. I recall being in church as a kid, and the preacher asked everyone in the congregation to tell him how they were "saved." Every congregation member who claimed to be "saved" said that their "salvation" was either a result of another human who "shared the gospel" with them or a result of them reading the bible, a book written by humans. None of them were "saved" because God addressed them directly, without the usage of human intermediaries. It was always either a family member, friend, pastor, priest, or prophet (author of a "scripture") whose words led to their "salvation." It was never an experience in which the deity addressed them directly. Funny coincidence, huh?

It would be very easy to convert me to your religion. Simply provide me documented evidence of someone who learned about the stories of your religion without hearing from one of your preachers or reading one of your holy books. For instance, if evidence could be presented of someone who learned about Jesus' crucifixion story and resurrection story from God directly (say, through a dream, vision, or hearing a voice, without reading the bible or listening to missionaries) in a part of the world entirely isolated from Christianity, I would be intrigued. But this never occurs. The logical explanation of this is that religions, as well as gods, are all man-made, and thus, no one ever hears about gods from the gods themselves, but instead, always only from humans, because humans are the ones who invented them.

God speaks to us all the time. It's just not in a language you are willing to appreciate because you have so much prejudice over exactly how you want to experience God.

 

[ManSinha]

God speaks to us all the time. It's just not in a language you are willing to appreciate because you have so much prejudice over exactly how you want to experience God.

I have said this before - a lecturer who was learned across many many religious beliefs used to often say - laced with humor - "God is extremely polite. He won't interrupt you. BUT if you keep quiet and clear your mind - there are very good chances that you will become aware of his presence and perhaps even gain a morsel of his wisdom"

 

[Ellen Brown]

Every single belief system I have come into contact with seeks to define God in a way that limits Him. This includes Muslims and Mormons, the two that I have the most respect for. God defined himself a long time ago, saying "I am that I am." Perhaps that is why Jews write God as G_d out of respect for him.

Lately pretty sure that none of us seems to have a clue.

 

[dfnj]

Every single belief system I have come into contact with seeks to define God in a way that limits Him. This includes Muslims and Mormons, the two that I have the most respect for. God defined himself a long time ago, saying "I am that I am." Perhaps that is why Jews write God as G_d out of respect for him.

Lately pretty sure that none of us seems to have a clue.

I really like the Apophatic way of defining God. With this way of thinking, God is perfect, complete, desiring nothing, lacking nothing, and needing nothing. Rather than the atheists view of God, where God is an imaginary friend or someone you meet in person, I really like the Holy Trinity and Apophatic way of thinking where "The essence of God is completely unknowable; mankind can know God only through His energies". So we can only know God through our experiences as an indirect way of seeing fragments or glimpses of the greatness that is God's infinite perfection.

"Apophatic theology, also known as negative theology,[1] is a form of theological thinking and religious practice which attempts to approach God, the Divine, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God"

"Dionysius describes the kataphatic or affirmative way to the divine as the "way of speech": that we can come to some understanding of the Transcendent by attributing all the perfections of the created order to God as its source. In this sense, we can say "God is Love", "God is Beauty", "God is Good". The apophatic or negative way stresses God's absolute transcendence and unknowability in such a way that we cannot say anything about the divine essence because God is so totally beyond being. The dual concept of the immanence and transcendence of God can help us to understand the simultaneous truth of both "ways" to God: at the same time as God is immanent, God is also transcendent. At the same time as God is knowable, God is also unknowable. God cannot be thought of as one or the other only"

"[t]hat which is infinite is known only to itself. This it is which gives some notion of God, while yet beyond all our conceptions – our very incapacity of fully grasping Him affords us the idea of what He really is. He is presented to our minds in His transcendent greatness, as at once known and unknown.[49]"

Apophatic theology - Wikipedia

The trinity is very Christian way of looking at God where God is a type of God not having any limitations.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If God were an objectively real being, why would he need to use men to write the bible, rather than writing it himself? Why would he speak through "prophets" rather than speak directly to mankind?

That largely and mostly applies to the Abrahamic religions, as in most other religions there are communications through spirits, dreams, omens, animal guides, and various aspects of nature.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If God’s message were not written in a book, every person who heard the message, would mix up what was told him

I like the way evolution handles instructions. Instead of a book verbally saying to eat, drink, breathe, reproduce, our bodies experience urges and demonstrate proclivities. There's no ambiguity there.

mankind cannot prophecy anything

The best prophecies we have had have been from man. The recent find of the Higgs boson at precisely the energy predicted, and with the other characteristics specified in the prediction such as charge, spin, parity, is the latest triumph in scientific prophecy. So great was the scientific community's and its underwriters’ confidence in science and its ability to prophecy, an incredibly large, powerful, and expensive device - the Large Hadron Collider - was built to find the particle, which was right where it was predicted to be.

The Almighty God had His book written in a way that wise men(in their own mind) cannot understand, but those who have a humble and questioning heart can, no matter how old.

So wise is bad and humble and questioning are better? To me intelligence is the quality that helps us accomplish our goals, whereas wisdom is knowing what to want - what will bring satisfaction. I don't find scripture useful for either purpose.

Most people are just like you, all they want to do is try to find a reason for not obeying what the Bible requires.

We don't need a reason to ignore the Christian Bible. What we need is a reason not to. What's your reason for ignoring the Qur'an? Probably the same as mine for ignoring all holy books.

The trouble with that is; men have been trying to find anything wrong in the Bible, for hundreds of years, and there has been nothing proved wrong in the Holy Bible.

Much of scripture has been proven false. The Bible is filled with internal contradictions, failed prophecies, unkept promises, moral and intellectual errors attributed to a perfect god, and countless errors of history and science.

The Bible is a miracle itself, and could not possibly be written by anyone but The Almighty God, whose name is Jehovah, in English.

There is nothing in the Christian Bible that could not have been written by ancient human beings. Which of us could not improve it? I would add scripture praising political freedom and condemning slavery. Imagine how singularly spectacular a book would be were it written by a deity who created the universe. Yet, as I indicated, there isn't a sentence in the Christian Bible that couldn't have been written by someone from antiquity, which people today can improve upon. If a deity exists, it would be far more intelligent that anybody who has ever lived. So what does that say when almost anyone can improve the Bible, but very few can improve on a book by Stephen Hawking, for example?

Here's another way of viewing this. What are the chances that whatever is responsible for our universe is also the author of Christian scripture? Look at them both and decide. I would say it's similar to trying to decide if the person who built a large bridge is the same as the author of the graffiti sprayed onto it.

 

[dfnj]

Here's another way of viewing this. What are the chances that whatever is responsible for our universe is also the author of Christian scripture?

I'll go with 100%. It may be a assumption to think we are separate from reality. Maybe all that exists is spirit. And like two opposing mirrors we are the Universe's way of experience itself. Maybe what allows us to experience our own consciousness is a thread of energy connected to the deepest root wave of energy making up the entire fabric of reality. And the difference between you and me and the people who wrote the words in the Bible is they felt the connection to the root wave so strongly they were compelled to write about.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Weakness of intellect on God's part, showing a puzzling inability (in an omniscient entity) to appreciate just quickly, easily and terrifyingly such communication can and, more importantly does, go wrong.

 

[Salvador]

If God were an objectively real being, why would he need to use men to write the bible, rather than writing it himself? Why would he speak through "prophets" rather than speak directly to mankind? It would be very easy for God to reveal his existence. He could simply directly communicate with humans, rather than needing intermediary humans to reach humans. The fact that no one ever hears about God directly from God is to me, one of the biggest pieces of evidence against the existence of God. A real god would not need to speak through human "prophets" and holy books written by humans. Yet every religion is traceable back to a human, not to an actual deity.

Let's consider a specific example. I recall being in church as a kid, and the preacher asked everyone in the congregation to tell him how they were "saved." Every congregation member who claimed to be "saved" said that their "salvation" was either a result of another human who "shared the gospel" with them or a result of them reading the bible, a book written by humans. None of them were "saved" because God addressed them directly, without the usage of human intermediaries. It was always either a family member, friend, pastor, priest, or prophet (author of a "scripture") whose words led to their "salvation." It was never an experience in which the deity addressed them directly. Funny coincidence, huh?

It would be very easy to convert me to your religion. Simply provide me documented evidence of someone who learned about the stories of your religion without hearing from one of your preachers or reading one of your holy books. For instance, if evidence could be presented of someone who learned about Jesus' crucifixion story and resurrection story from God directly (say, through a dream, vision, or hearing a voice, without reading the bible or listening to missionaries) in a part of the world entirely isolated from Christianity, I would be intrigued. But this never occurs. The logical explanation of this is that religions, as well as gods, are all man-made, and thus, no one ever hears about gods from the gods themselves, but instead, always only from humans, because humans are the ones who invented them.

God, our genetic code's Creator, doesn't verbally speak to anybody; but rather "God" has embedded the semantic message of "037" in our genetic coding where this message of "037" gets conveyed to us conscious beings who widely understand base-ten math. There is indeed a mark of "God's" intelligence left in our genetic code as evident by how the numeric and semantic message of 037 appears in our genetic code. Each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37 Hence, the meaningful numeric and semantic message of 037 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us Earthling humans with our genetic code invented by a superior intelligence beyond that of anybody presently bound to Earth.

Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov. Icarus, May 2013,Redirectinghttps://www.scribd.com/document/35302916...netic-Code

The significance of the semantic message "037" embedded in our genetic coding is well-explained in the following journal articles: .
Biosystems Volume 70, Issue 3, August 2003, Pages 187-209 "Arithmetic inside the universal genetic code" Author: Vladimir I. shCherbak
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...4703000662

NeuroQuantology | December 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 4 | Page 702-715 Masic, Natasa Nested Properties of shCherbak’s PQ 037 and (Biological) Coding/Computing Nested Numeric/Geometric/Arithmetic Propertiesof shCherbak’s Prime Quantum 037 as a Base of (Biological) Coding/Computing
http://Nested Numeric/Geometric/Arithmetic Properties

 

[74x12]

If God were an objectively real being, why would he need to use men to write the bible, rather than writing it himself? Why would he speak through "prophets" rather than speak directly to mankind? It would be very easy for God to reveal his existence. He could simply directly communicate with humans, rather than needing intermediary humans to reach humans.

Yeah why does God even have angels(literally messengers)? I mean why does God make people, angels etc. Why? Why does God bother with us? See the slippery slope you're making? God apparently likes people and likes to use them for His purposes.

The fact we exist at all means God must have some use for us; if God exists.

The fact that no one ever hears about God directly from God is to me, one of the biggest pieces of evidence against the existence of God.

That's just not true. Plenty of people have heard directly from God.

A real god would not need to speak through human "prophets" and holy books written by humans. Yet every religion is traceable back to a human, not to an actual deity.

Well forget religions. If you want to hear directly from God it's possible.

It would be very easy to convert me to your religion. Simply provide me documented evidence of someone who learned about the stories of your religion without hearing from one of your preachers or reading one of your holy books. For instance, if evidence could be presented of someone who learned about Jesus' crucifixion story and resurrection story from God directly (say, through a dream, vision, or hearing a voice, without reading the bible or listening to missionaries) in a part of the world entirely isolated from Christianity, I would be intrigued.

I can show you youtube videos of people--especially Muslims-- having just such dreams of Jesus. Or so they claim. Obviously you're going to have to believe them. But, yes they do claim this very thing.

But this never occurs. The logical explanation of this is that religions, as well as gods, are all man-made, and thus, no one ever hears about gods from the gods themselves, but instead, always only from humans, because humans are the ones who invented them.

It does occur.

 

[MJFlores]

If God were an objectively real being, why would he need to use men to write the bible, rather than writing it himself?

Why would God need to use men to write the bible, rather than writing it himself?

In fact he did.

Deuteronomy 9:9-11 New International Version (NIV)
When I went up on the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant that the Lord had made with you, I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights; I ate no bread and drank no water. The Lord gave me two stone tablets inscribed by the finger of God. On them were all the commandments the Lord proclaimed to you on the mountain out of the fire, on the day of the assembly.

At the end of the forty days and forty nights, the Lord gave me the two stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant.

Where was it placed? Exodus 25:16

According to various texts within the Hebrew Bible, it also contained Aaron's rod and a pot of manna. Hebrews 9:4 describes: "The ark of the covenant [was] covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded, and the tablets of the covenant."

And the subsequent events was this ark and the tablets which God inscribed the commandments changed hands and ultimately was taken up to heaven.
Ark of the Covenant - Wikipedia

Not to mention that in the wrong hands it gave destruction and pestilence to people possessing it.

 

[MJFlores]

Why would he speak through "prophets" rather than speak directly to mankind?

I would cite one verse in different English versions.
I will not attempt to interpret the same
You yourself will figure out why.

Isaiah 59:2 New International Version (NIV)
But your iniquities have separated
you from your God;
your sins have hidden his face from you,
so that he will not hear.

Isaiah 59:2 Contemporary English Version (CEV)
Your sins are the roadblock
between you and your God.
That’s why he doesn’t answer
your prayers
or let you see his face.

Isaiah 59:2 Good News Translation (GNT)
It is because of your sins that he doesn't hear you. It is your sins that separate you from God when you try to worship him.

Isaiah 59:2 New Living Translation (NLT)
It’s your sins that have cut you off from God.
Because of your sins, he has turned away
and will not listen anymore.

Isaiah 59:2 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
Rather, your iniquities have been barriers
between you and your God,
and your sins have hidden his face from you
so that he does not hear.

 

[dfnj]

I don't agree with the premise of the OP. God speaks to us through the act of creation and through the logos of forms:

"1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."

God said, "Let there be light." It can't be more telling than that.

 

[dfnj]

I would cite

The problem with being obsessed with sin is you become the evil you despise.

 

[ManSinha]

Lately pretty sure that none of us seems to have a clue.

The clues are all around - it is a matter of perspective and what one chooses to see and believe

 

[MJFlores]

The problem with being obsessed with sin is you become the evil you despise.

That's deep. Very deep.
It's almost like....

You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
-Two face /Havey Dent.

 

[Etritonakin]

If God were an objectively real being, why would he need to use men to write the bible, rather than writing it himself? Why would he speak through "prophets" rather than speak directly to mankind? It would be very easy for God to reveal his existence. He could simply directly communicate with humans, rather than needing intermediary humans to reach humans. The fact that no one ever hears about God directly from God is to me, one of the biggest pieces of evidence against the existence of God. A real god would not need to speak through human "prophets" and holy books written by humans. Yet every religion is traceable back to a human, not to an actual deity.

Let's consider a specific example. I recall being in church as a kid, and the preacher asked everyone in the congregation to tell him how they were "saved." Every congregation member who claimed to be "saved" said that their "salvation" was either a result of another human who "shared the gospel" with them or a result of them reading the bible, a book written by humans. None of them were "saved" because God addressed them directly, without the usage of human intermediaries. It was always either a family member, friend, pastor, priest, or prophet (author of a "scripture") whose words led to their "salvation." It was never an experience in which the deity addressed them directly. Funny coincidence, huh?

It would be very easy to convert me to your religion. Simply provide me documented evidence of someone who learned about the stories of your religion without hearing from one of your preachers or reading one of your holy books. For instance, if evidence could be presented of someone who learned about Jesus' crucifixion story and resurrection story from God directly (say, through a dream, vision, or hearing a voice, without reading the bible or listening to missionaries) in a part of the world entirely isolated from Christianity, I would be intrigued. But this never occurs. The logical explanation of this is that religions, as well as gods, are all man-made, and thus, no one ever hears about gods from the gods themselves, but instead, always only from humans, because humans are the ones who invented them.

God does not need us to do things -he wants us to do things, and we need to do those things he wants us to do.

Technically, we are not -at least completely -"saved" until made immortal/incorruptible.
When made incorruptible, we will literally govern the Earth ("shall reign as kings and priests") and "the heavens" which "were formed to be inhabited" -so we need to be trained to obey and administer the government of God.

Some did and do receive the truth directly from God -or angels, etc., and as long as what is passed on is actually the truth, the source is still God.
The whole idea is for "the truth" to go through all of us to each other. Lucifer became Satan (Adversary) the destroyer by not doing so -turning a third of the angels and attempting a coup against God's throne. God knew new beings would err and be adversarial, so he is allowing a period of experience in a controlled environment to eradicate such.
Then all things will be made new (even the present works on the earth have already been scheduled to be burned up, etc.).

The truth passing through individuals other than God (who are essentially made of a portion of "God" -who is everything -by logical separation -anyway)
is basically no different than software being passed from computer to computer without error.
It's the same stuff and it originated in the same place.

God's plan was not to do everything for us, but to make us gods (I said 'ye are gods') -the children of God who are to liberate the entire creation from its bondage to decay -and create throughout the universe -employing "glorious" bodies capable of having power over even cosmic events ("change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.")

 

[ManSinha]

Technically, we are not -at least completely -"saved" until made immortal/incorruptible.
When made incorruptible, we will literally govern the Earth ("shall reign as kings and priests") and "the heavens" which "were formed to be inhabited" -so we need to be trained to obey and administer the government of God.

There would appear to be a fundamental flaw in that viewpoint

To wit:

Who is the "we" that will be made immortal?

Is it the ones that are currently alive? Or are you referring also to the ones that have gone before and will come later?

If it is the latter then you have to contend to the dreadful problem of overcrowding - unless you also say "God will provide" which is not how it works - think of the famines that occur - and you have also said this

God's plan was not to do everything for us,

Does that then refer to the souls of people? I have heard it indicated that some believe that the soul is mortal and perishes at the end of the journey.

The overall picture seems promising - the details leave me confused