Serious question - really. The changing beliefs on God speaking to humans

[dmallind]

Many times we are told that literalist or otherwise naive beliefs are restricted to a small fringe of believers. In most cases I disagree, but this is one area where I really do see that happening. Clearly God speaks to a large number of humans in the Bible, and clearly we can look at many claims of divine conversations in pretty much every denomination until very recently. Now though, even quite conservative sects have stopped talking about God talking to them directly. DU believers seem almost as dismissive of such claims as non-believers, snd we hear about hearing God's voice only from televangelists and far-right theocrats lately. I've even heard about denominations on the evangelical spectrum who refuse to consider ordaining those who believe their calling came with a real call.

I'm not too interested in debating whether God DOES speak, in the conversational sense rather than by internal voiceless sensations, to people. Partly because I expect few would take the pro side here and partly because it is pointless unless you assume he exists to do any speaking in the first place. What I AM genuinely interested in is why the changing acceptance of such claims seems to be ongoing, and when it started, etc. If most believers doubt that God speaks directly any more, do they think he stopped, or that stories of him doing so are by their very nature metaphorical? If the latter how did he communicate the very specific things that seem quite central to scripture - the Decalogue and so on? Did he even ever communicate specifics? Does he now? Why is the way we talk and think about God communicating to humans, even amongst believers, so very different from before - and not that long ago?

[Poll_Blind]

1. I think modernity necessitated that some of the more outrageous claims be dismissed.

I hope people actually read your question and respond to that question, because it's a really interesting one. IMO, there are a number of claims which religious adherents could have made in the past which simply "would not fly" currently.

BTW, interestingly, I believe that children can still "plausibly" claim to have had God or an angelic figure appear or speak to them directly and that that is viewed differently than a modern adult making the same claim.

For me, trying to reverse engineer that difference, for instance, simply points to a much more highly educated and scrupulous pool of religious adherents who recognize the outrageousness of some of the claims ("God/an angel appeared and spoke directly to me") which were not uncommon in the past, even the recent (last 100 years) past and are quietly moving away from the validation they used to receive.

For bonus points, I think that claims that the Devil appeared to or personally spoke to a person are still regarded as highly as ever.

PB

[dmallind]

5. really. Yes. Sorry - should be reply to #2.

Abraham? Joshua? Gideon? Samuel? Job? Isaiah? Jeremiah? Everybody who was at the baptism of Jesus? And that's from memory. Pretty sure plenty more out there. How many is "large"?

And why you imagine I took any position or made any claim about the age of literalist approaches to scripture I have no idea. The only mention of it in my (unedited) OP is to say that I hear many people claim literalism is a fringe position and I disagree. All of them present tense statements.

[grantcart]

2. really?

"God speaks to a large number of humans in the Bible"


I think that you will find the number of people who believe that they have heard the actual voice of God is a very small group indeed.

Moses is one.

Jesus never claimed to hear any voices, neither did David or any of the main figures in the Bible.

Their claim is to hear God speak to them in the meaning of their lives, not in specific language or voice.

No book of the Bible claims that it is written from the words spoken by God and written down.

And please don't count any of the texts which feature angels singing in perfect prose as being an actual voice heard. It was understood from antiquity to be a literary device to give form to what the author surmised was God's reasoning.

The idea of a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible decreasing is actually inverted. The idea of a literal interpretation of the Bible is a very recent development in Church history, starting in the 19th century.

In antiquity and up until the printing of the Bible it was only read and interpreted by Priests and scribes who had read enough of the Bible to know that a literal interpretation was not possible. Obviously Jesus is literally not a 'road' and so on. It was also understood to be edited by the Gospel writers to reinforce particular points of view.

This is not a technical or even arguable point. Take the Sermon on the Mount. It appears, quite majestically, only in one book, Matthew.

Now is it at all logical that a moment in time that is that significant with such a well organized and comprehensive 'State of the Ministry' type speech would have only been noticed by Matthew and not the other Gospel writers, or the Epistle writers.

Until very recently the idea of a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible in every detail simply didn't exist.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. There are several Biblical characters the texts say god spoke

to directly, starting with Adam and Eve, easily including Jacob, Mosses, Abraham, and Elijah, off the top of my head. That's plenty to make the case that the Bible has lots of people whom God is said to have spoken to directly. Additionally, all of the Prophets claimed 'God told them what to say'.
While you are correct about Jesus, 'St Paul' said he heard an audible voice ask 'Saul, why are you persecuting me?'
And so forth. So, yeah, the Bible is filled with this reported phenomenon. The OP asks an interesting question.
Got to edit to add Peter on the roof. Net full of unclean food, the voice says 'eat' and Peter says no and so on and so forth, hence Peter did not keep kosher with Gentiles. Voice from the sky. This is a fun game.

[grantcart]

8. Your basic assumptions are not correct

1) The idea of a literal intepretation of the Bible is not a traditional understanding of how the Bible should be read but a relatively recent one.

2) You said that lots of people heard voices in the Bible and really tradition only allows for three legitimate direct epiphanies; Moses, Abraham and Elijah.

3) Adam and Eve have always been understood as stories and not biographical stories as have Noah and Jonah. Job also quotes God talking with the devil but it is in fact a drama as the Psalms is poetry.

4) God didn't talk to Paul but to Saul. While Saul was still estranged from God he was sent a voice to give him instruction as to what he was to do to turn his life around "Saul, why do you persecute me?". The point is that when Paul became a Christian and its most prominent spokesman and while he was on trial for his life, he never offered that he was having conversations with God hearing his voice.

The point is that the current bunch of Republican wing nuts who are saying that they have received instructions to run for President are not simply religious nuts they are religuous nuts completely outside the Christian tradition.

[On the Road]

3. Historically, I Think it Goes Back to Catholicism

God speaking directly to a believer undercut the authority of the church except where they could appropriate it (eg, saint stories).

The reformation replaced the authority of the church with sola scriptura. All post-Biblical speech from God came through scriptures, leaving no room for God to speak directly to individuals.

There were groups along the way that believed in direct revelation, such as the anabaptists, but they were generally considered heretical and often persecuted.

In America, it was not too unusual for people to claim that God had led them to do something or other (eg, choose a profession), but I suspect it was usually understood not to be the kind of explicit revelation featured in the Bible.

Few modern Christians understand church history at all, and pretty much start from scratch. So there are no longer any obstacles to claiming direct revelation from God. The problem tends to be that individuals who do claim direct revelation tend to look foolish before too many years pass.

[dmallind]

6. Good points - but after the church(es) lost much secular power

it seems to me we still had lots of claimants referring to divine speech, and yet few now, where even at my most paranoid I can't imagine many people were silent about such things for fear of ecclesiastical retribution.

The sola scriptura movement is an intriguing dilemma too. Yes it strongly disincentivizes new revelations from God, but it points directly back as THE source to a Bible replete with examples where it happened. It's possibly part of why few claim to have heard God's voice, but it should reinforce the idea that he can and did speak directly too.

[On the Road]

7. I Think It's Like the Charismatic Gifts in Corinthians

The organized church decided early on, maybe in the 4th C after Constantine, that the gifts of prophecy, tongues, healing, etc. were practiced during the time of the apostles but died out shortly after that. Divine revelation is not exactly the same as prophecy, but it's close. It was treated as something for biblical and apostolic times only.

On the other hand, it's probably human nature for a devout person who spends enormous time and effort on worship and morality to feel that they are in touch with God. Eventually, as religion became decentralized and orthodoxy was less strictly enforced, there were more individuals and groups that either cast aside tradition or were simply unfamiliar with it.

There's a very deep division in conservative Christianity between those who believe in special revelation and those who do not. The The Pentecostal movement started about a century ago in Wales and spread to the US pretty quickly, but it was rejected by both liberal and fundamentalist churches partly for this reason. Pastors who claimed special revelation from God tended to be treated almost as cult leaders rather than fellow believers. Someone like Pat Robertson claims that God tells him things because he's from the Pentecostal tradition. Herman Cain is actually a Baptist minister. Baptists trace their roots back to Anabaptism in Europe, which has notorious for prophecy and special revelation, but I think most Baptists in the US believe in sola scriptura.

In general, there's so much diversity and historical ignorance in the church right now that everyone pretty much believes what they want to believe.

[PassingFair]

9. Have you read Julian Jaynes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_%28psychology%29

Fascinating theories.

I loved "The Origin of Consciousness....."

[cleanhippie]

10. Because we, as a species, are raising the bar for what is and is not insane?

The bar still needs to be raised, and it is being raised, slowly but surly.

[Taverner]

11. People who "speak" to god are almost always mentally ill