God speaks, granted...but do we hear Him?

[Malpana Tava]

Jewish theologian Arthur A. Cohen said:

"What is taken as God's speech is really always man's hearing."

God speaks but do we actually hear him? And when he speaks, does God take into account our moral, cultural and other limitations? If so, can we still speak of pure, transcendent verities revealed in only one scripture?

Discuss with erudition, humor, common sense and a reasonable measure of objectivity.

More on Arthur A.Cohen:

http://www.frontlist.com/detail/0814322824 (http://)

[zorathruster]

David Coresh of Mt Carmel Texas heard God. God told him to arm himself and fight the ATF. When surrounded and ready to be captured, he found the word of God told him to burn everyone, children included.

How can you say with any confidence that God did not tell David Coresh to fight the ATF and burn the village? How would you discern valid from invalid communication?

Andrea Yates says that god told her to murder her children before they became responsible for their sins. How would you be able to disern whether god actually spoke to Ms Yates or not? Same thing happened to Tyler mother Deanna LaJune Laney.

These people claim that god spoke to them and told them to do these horrible things. Why do you think that you can pick and choose between which of those who follow their "words of god" and you like get credit while those who follow their "words of god" that you don't like can be discounted? How would you really know that god did not tell these criminals to do what they did?

[Polynesian girl]

Great reply. Thought-provoking...

[Heathen Dawn]

If so, can we still speak of pure, transcendent verities revealed in only one scripture?

Pure, transcendent verities cannot be revealed in any scripture.

[guacamole]

These people claim that god spoke to them and told them to do these horrible things. Why do you think that you can pick and choose between which of those who follow their "words of god" and you like get credit while those who follow their "words of god" that you don't like can be discounted? How would you really know that god did not tell these criminals to do what they did?

There are a coupla common sense principles when trying to discern wether or not God is actually speaking to someone (in no particular order):

1. Rule of Non-Contradiction: If a teacher of the word comes into the world with a new and novel teaching that, in addition, cancels out a prior teaching, then the rule of non-contradiction demands a good reason for the annulment.
What I call the "rule of non-contradiction" is simply the observation that God doesn't contradict himself without good reason. It is based on the presumption that God is logical and that his edicts are logically enforceable. An essential contradiction in instructions would constitue a logical impossibility. If there is a logical impossibility introduced by the new teaching then we know that they cannot both be operative, at least one of them must be wrong:

In A.D. 70 the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by a Roman Army. Subsequent processes, some of which had already begun simply because of the movement of Jews through out the empire and the political climate of ancient Palestine, changed Judaism from a religion of the cultus, focusing on the temple activities, to one of the synagogue. There is an essential contradiction in God's instruction for Jews to offer sacrifices and the rabbinic teachings that sacrifices are not necessary. It was determined that the destruction of the temple and the inability to maintain the cultus was good reason for changing to a different manifestation of following the law regarding the contradiction. In this case a later development nullified an earlier development.

2. Weight of Tradition: When we speak of the "weight of tradition" we are really speaking of the collective experience of believers who have together upheld the religious practices and beliefs throughout the centuries. The weight of tradition causes us to favor established ideas over novel ideas. The basic idea is that we need good reason to change from one accepted practice to favor a new practice. IOW, we have traditions that are established by Divine will, what reason is there to change to another practice. In some ways this is similar to the law of non-contradiction, but the weight of tradition usually has a greater effect on those ideas that aren't necessarily contradictory, but simply just different:

Protestantism and Catholicism aren't necessarily contradictory, for example; they both uphold the essential faith statements of Christianity. In large part the things Protestantism holds to be heretical are also held to be heretical by Catholicism and vice versa. Granted, they tend to think of each other as heretical in many aspects, but there is much to be agreed upon. When Martin Luther was challenging the establishment of the Catholic Church to reform certain practices, he wasn't necessarily trying to over throw the ecclesiastical order- he was trying to get rid of practices, established practices, that he thought were wrong. In this case Luther taught that the teachings of scripture were good reason to abandon certain practices with the weight of tradition in favor of new practices (which subsequently now have their own weight of tradition).

3. Character of the Witness: This is not simply an argument from ad hominmen about new teaching. The argument from the character of the witness argues that at least the actions of the teacher ought to be in line with teaching that he brings. There is no good reason why a teacher can violate his own teaching and have that teaching still stand.

There are others, but those three seem to be the most universal.

IMO, the teachings of David Koresh violated all three of the above principles that I use to discern the inspiration of new teaching. In light of that, there is no chance that Koresh spoke for God.

fwiw
guac.

[zorathruster]

1. Rule of Non-Contradiction: If a teacher of the word comes into the world with a new and novel teaching that, in addition, cancels out a prior teaching, then the rule of non-contradiction demands a good reason for the annulment.
What I call the "rule of non-contradiction" is simply the observation that God doesn't contradict himself without good reason. It is based on the presumption that God is logical and that his edicts are logically enforceable. An essential contradiction in instructions would constitue a logical impossibility. If there is a logical impossibility introduced by the new teaching then we know that they cannot both be operative, at least one of them must be wrong:


2. Weight of Tradition: When we speak of the "weight of tradition" we are really speaking of the collective experience of believers who have together upheld the religious practices and beliefs throughout the centuries. The weight of tradition causes us to favor established ideas over novel ideas. The basic idea is that we need good reason to change from one accepted practice to favor a new practice. IOW, we have traditions that are established by Divine will, what reason is there to change to another practice. In some ways this is similar to the law of non-contradiction, but the weight of tradition usually has a greater effect on those ideas that aren't necessarily contradictory, but simply just different:

3. Character of the Witness: This is not simply an argument from ad hominmen about new teaching. The argument from the character of the witness argues that at least the actions of the teacher ought to be in line with teaching that he brings. There is no good reason why a teacher can violate his own teaching and have that teaching still stand.


guac.

Non-contradiction - Jesus embodies the god of love - "For, I say unto you, that unto every one which hath shall be given, and from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away from him. But those, mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither, and slay them before me." [Luke xix. 26, 27.]

So which would you like to say is the contradiction, the loving god part or the quote from Luke?

Tradition - We find the idea of selling people into slavery as abhorant - EX 21:7-11 A father can sell a daughter into slavery to pay a debt.

Would you retreat to the good ole days of tradition when it comes to paying off Mastercard?

As far as character of the speaker:

MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

Now what part of these quotes do you find less than truthful? Would you fault the speaker and his legitimacy?

[TrinityKicker]

Pure, transcendent verities cannot be revealed in any scripture.

Normally, I don't like one liners but I've got to ask. How can you possibly know that?