> What we see in your examples are cases where a person experienced God, and at some point later in time did something wrong. All that shows is that such encounters do not make a person morally perfect from that point onward.

That's true. Your perception is accurate, but I think your original point was "God wants you to believe in pencils more than Himself," and "if God really does exist and wants a relationship with us -- and if this relationship is the single most important thing to “get right” -- then why would God not give us more epistemic access to his own existence … than that of a pencil?? This seems incompatible with the existence of a God who wants to have a relationship with us."

What I was getting at is that direct, personal interaction with God doesn't guarantee that relationship. I think what it comes down to is that God's reluctance to appear to each one of us in blazing color is NOT incompatible with the existence of a God who wants to have a relationship with us.

> Adam and Eve would have never known God. ... Noah would not have known God ... Abraham would like have not known...

You're RIGHT. That's the whole point: God wants us to know Him. What we have to try to learn is how that best happens. In the Bible, it is the initiation of the covenant that is the mechanism by which God makes Himself known. It seems to be a more productive method than direct, personal interaction.

God has a plan in history that he is sovereignly executing. The goal of that plan is for him to be in relationship with the people whom he has created. It would be difficult for people to enter into a relationship with a God whom they do not know. If his nature were concealed, obscured, or distorted, an honest relationship would be impossible. In order to clear the way for this relationship, then, God has undertaken as a primary objective a program of self-revelation. He wants people to know him. The mechanism that drives this program is the covenant, and the instrument is Israel. The purpose of the covenant is to reveal God.

What we see in your examples are cases where a person experienced God, and at some point later in time did something wrong. All that shows is that such encounters do not make a person morally perfect from that point onward.
​
But generally speaking, each person you gave (except Cain -- I'll give you that one!) 1) believed God exists, 2) had a relationship with God, and 3) was held up as an example of faith in the Bible. Looks pretty good for direct, personal interaction
​
Plus, let's consider the alternative to each of those. What if God had NOT appeared to those parties?
​

* Adam and Eve would have never known God. They didn't have the Bible or any other source of truth, if you take the story literally. It was the beginning of the world, after all.
* Cain wouldn't have been jealous about the offering business, but he seems like a jerk so I'm sure he would have done something bad eventually. I'm giving you that one, remember?
* Noah would have not known God in any sort of meaningful way, and then would have drowned in the flood.
* Abraham would likely have not known "the true God" either, and would have died in Ur.
* Similar stories for Isaac and Jacob.

Great question. It's such a good question, if you don't mind, I'm going to think outloud here, writing as I'm thinking without working ahead. My mind is going through the Bible, looking for times God actually, like, showed up—direct, personal interaction. I'll just start writing.

1. Adam and Eve saw God (direct, personal interaction), and then disobeyed him (Gn. 3.1-7)
2. God spoke to Cain (direct, personal interaction), who then disobeyed him and murdered his brother (Gn. 4.6-16)
3. God spoke to Noah, who obeyed him (Gn. 6.13-22ff.), but then screwed up pretty royally (Gn. 9.20-23).
4. God spoke to Abraham and gave him special visions of direct, personal interaction (Gn. 12.1; 15.12-21; etc.). Abe sometimes obeyed and sometimes not.
5. God spoke to Isaac. We know close to nothing about him.
6. God spoke to Jacob and gave him a spectacular vision (Gn. 28.10-18). Jacob was pretty much a jerk for most of his life.

That's Genesis. It's not looking good for direct, personal interaction.

I can continue, but I wonder if I need to hear from you at this point rather than push on through Exodus and beyond.

Great question. It's such a good question, if you don't mind, I'm going to think outloud here, writing as I'm thinking without working ahead. My mind is going through the Bible, looking for times God actually, like, showed up—direct, personal interaction. I'll just start writing.

1. Adam and Eve saw God (direct, personal interaction), and then disobeyed him (Gn. 3.1-7)
2. God spoke to Cain (direct, personal interaction), who then disobeyed him and murdered his brother (Gn. 4.6-16)
3. God spoke to Noah, who obeyed him (Gn. 6.13-22ff.), but then screwed up pretty royally (Gn. 9.20-23).
4. God spoke to Abraham and gave him special visions of direct, personal interaction (Gn. 12.1; 15.12-21; etc.). Abe sometimes obeyed and sometimes not.
5. God spoke to Isaac. We know close to nothing about him.
6. God spoke to Jacob and gave him a spectacular vision (Gn. 28.10-18). Jacob was pretty much a jerk for most of his life.

We have two people in Genesis who seem to be exemplary: Enoch (Gn. 5.24) and Joseph (Gn. 37-50). We're not told about Enoch's interactions with God and what they were like, only that he "walked with God," but what that means or entails is not explained. We're not aware that Joseph had any direct, personal interaction with God except through one dream in particular.

That's Genesis. It's not looking good for direct, personal interaction.

I can continue, but I wonder if I need to hear from you at this point rather than push on through Exodus and beyond.

It may be helpful to distinguish between personal one-on-one interactions and impersonal, removed, en-mass "signs and wonders".

For the sake of argument, I'll let you have the en-mass stuff.

But what I'm talking about is a direct, personal interaction. Those were almost always beneficial and successful. Would you disagree?

Yeah, and many people don't seem to think that God appearing would be detrimental. Actually this question comes up often on the forum, that if God would just show Himself this would all be a whole lot easier and a whole lot more straight forward.

I've never seen God. God never showed Himself to me, or to anyone I know. So I am only going by what the Bible is showing, that most people who see God that way aren't won over. In ways it doesn't make sense to me (as it doesn't to you), but that's what the Bible shows. The more obvious God is, the less people follow. To me it's counterintuitive, but that's the picture it shows. We see it especially in the Exodus story and in the Jesus narrative.

> In my analogy, the medicine is given to all 100 rats, but is only effective in 30.

I suppose the big difference between our thinking is that I don't think that God appearing to someone is actually detrimental to them. Assuming a person starts out not believing in God, they will be either converted be an appearance of God, or not. But in the latter case they are no different than if he had never appeared.

> Consider this analogy. A medicine is being tested in the lab. 100 rats have a disease, and the test drug cures 30 of them. You could argue that the drug is not very effective because less than half were cured. But it's a lot better than nothing, because without the drug 0 rats would be cured!

OK, I'm trying to make sure I don't misunderstand you, or miss your point, or misconstrue your analogy. My assertion was that God's direct appearing to people is most of the time detrimental. What works better is God acting inside of lives. But then it seems you give me an analogy of something that would be good for everyone but is only given to 30%. What I'm saying is that's not a fair analogy because you don't have a deleterious effect as part of your sample.

Suppose a medicine is being tested i the lab. 100 rats have a disease, and the test drug cures 30 of them, but kills the other 70. I may not be ready to conclude that the drug is a lot better than nothing. That's the point I'm making.

God's appearances and miracles most certainly don't get everyone saved, and seem that a lot of the time have a deleterious effect rather than a beneficial one. Instead, He reveals Himself when it would be helpful, and otherwise works from the inside.

> Then you have missed my point. According to the Bible, it's NOT clearly the former. God appearing to people and giving them a direct experience with Him is only effective some of the time, and not even most of the time.

No, I don't think I have. Actually, it seems you missed my point! What you should be looking at is not the percentage of people who responded positively to God's appearances. It is to what would have happened had God done nothing at all.

Consider this analogy. A medicine is being tested in the lab. 100 rats have a disease, and the test drug cures 30 of them. You could argue that the drug is not very effective because less than half were cured. But it's a lot better than nothing, because without the drug 0 rats would be cured!

That's what I'm saying here. Sure, God's appearances and miracles may not get everyone saved. But it's a lot better than nothing at all, and will result in SOME being saved.

> But here's the thing: just because it is not effective 100% of the time doesn't mean it's not more effective than not appearing at all.

I agree. And he has appeared to many people. He appeared, obviously (if we believe the biblical account) to Moses and Paul, and we have the benefit of their writings to guide our lives even 2000-3300 years later.

There is also, if you have access to a certain segment of the news, a GREAT trend (or even a movement) happening now. It seems, according to the reports, that hundreds, if not thousands, of Muslims are having visions of Jesus. (I'm sure you can Google it.) We're watching it happen and wondering what's going on, at the same time pleased at what God is doing. He is making inroads where people have failed for centuries.

> Which is more likely to produce people who know God and have a relationship with him?? Clearly the former.

Then you have missed my point. According to the Bible, it's NOT clearly the former. God appearing to people and giving them a direct experience with Him is only effective some of the time, and not even most of the time. Think about the stories we read in Exodus and Numbers about God appearing to the Israelites in Egypt and the wilderness. And yet not one of them entered the Promised Land except Joshua and Caleb. Think of how many thousands of people saw Jesus, heard Him speak, and witnessed His miracles. And yet at His death He had only a small cadre of followers. I would contend it's NOT clearly the former.

> I don't think this is accurate. Think of the apostle Paul, just to take one example. That was pretty effective!

Sure, the Apostle Paul is one where it worked. There are many, but the record of the Bible is that there are many more where it didn't. Even in Revelation when God appears, instead of people coming to Him they will scream for the rocks and mountains to cover them and hide them from Him. Go figure.

> It's obvious to me that even a direct experience with God doesn't make it certain that one will follow him.

So, I get this response a lot. But here's the thing: just because it is not effective 100% of the time doesn't mean it's not more effective than not appearing at all.

Just imagine the two extremes:

-> God appears to everyone who ever lives throughout history in a direct, personal way.
VS
-> God never appears to anyone, ever.

Think about this. Which is more likely to produce people who know God and have a relationship with him?? Clearly the former.
​
> 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.

I don't think this is accurate. Think of the apostle Paul, just to take one example. That was pretty effective!