Board index ‹ God

[Plus 1]

Let's assume that the most important part of Christianity is that people have faith and believe in god. At the very least it's a very important thing/concept for Christians. So it appears that God himself also thinks this is a very important thing. Why then doesn't he just show himself very clearly? Especially when he claims to be so powerful it should not be hard for him to send a 100% disambiguous message. After that everyone would believe in him.

[jimwalton]

First of all, there is no such thing as a 100% disambiguous message. Everything but everything is interpretable, and is usually interpreted according to one's filters, experiences, and perspectives, and not objectively.

Communication theory tells us there are three parts to communication: the sender, the message, and the receiver. No matter how pure the sender, and no matter how clear the message, the receiver is always a wild card. All communication must be interpreted.

Second, God appearing and having a friendly conversation wouldn't do it. Let me go back to the very beginning. Isn't it astounding that some spiritual beings—who knew God by experience, could see him and hear him, knew his goodness, his greatness, and his power—could rebel against God and abandon their positions (Jude 1.6) in defiance against God? How is that possible? There weren't even any filters (as far as we know) between them and God, and yet they turned against him. It's obvious to me that even a direct experience with God doesn't make it certain that one will follow him. "Irrefutable evidence" doesn't help them be "believers."

James 2.19 talks about demons who believe in God, sure enough, but don't follow him. They know all about him, so we can assume, and yet they don't follow God or "believe in him" in the sense of love and obey him.

We know that the children of Israel who were part of the Exodus got to see spectacular wonders of God's miraculous doings (pretty close to those friendly conversations you might want), and yet many of them were rebellious and unfaithful. Elijah called fired down from heaven, and it came, but all the people weren't convinced. We also know that thousands of people got to see Jesus, hear him speak, and watch him do miracles, and yet they didn't all turn to being disciples. Even a 100% unambiguous message wasn't good enough.

In other words, God speaking to people is no guarantee of the relationship. Often times, it's actually detrimental. God speaking to people seems only to be effective when the person is already in relationship with God. If they aren't, God speaking doesn't seem to make any difference at all, oddly enough.

[Hunter]

So God keeping a safe distance, taking the quiet approach, is what works best? Sincere question; no disrespect intended.

[jimwalton]

Not keeping a safe distance. Nothing I said implied that. God is near and always at work. But, yeah, taking the quiet approach—working from the inside—seems to be the more reliable path. Maybe I can use this possibly faulty analogy: real governmental change doesn't happen because of the protests in the streets and the rallies with loud microphones, but when Congressmen, President, and Justices take action. Real change comes from within the system, not on the streets. Granted, what happens on the streets can affect the way Congresspersons might think and act, but the real change happens inside the building, not out. This analogy may only get me partially to my point, but hopefully you get what I'm getting at.

When God blasts himself with big shows, loud microphones, and obviousness, people seem quite unimpressed. But when God can appeal to your mind, your will, worldview, and emotions, that's where the real effect seems to be. It's not so much taking the "quiet approach," though I think I understand what you mean by that. But changing the way people think seems to work better than putting on a show.