I asked the following rhetorical question in another thread:
"I find it incredulous that the alleged Almighty (as he has been described) has not stayed in contact with us and/or left behind a clearer record not subject to any dispute (certainly possible for the "Almighty" as He has been described."
The response, which the person later refused to clarify, was as follows:
"It is your assumption that a clearer better way is available to God. But, as I said to you in one of our earlier posts God (the Father) spoke to his people directly. Did it help? They still sinned and turned away in droves. "
Now, I understand perfectly that the reply is claiming that God spoke directly to "his people" based on OT scripture. In fact, the Jewish faith makes it a point to distinguish between "national revelation" (the claim that God spoke to an entire people) and "personal revelation" (the claim that God incarnated and spoke through Jesus).
I'm not interested in scriptural arguments as "proof" that God communicated directly with man. I want to know why God later chose personal revelation (assuming he did speak directly to man as described in the OT) and why God has chosen to remain silent since, unless of course we want to consider other claims of personal revelation - in which case Mohammed, Joseph Smith, et als., claims become fair game.
If God wants his "children" to follow his law, and he understand that there is much confusion, deception and lies regarding what the law is, why does he not simply "speak" or communicate with us now?
I'd like to hear some earnest opinions.
As for my "assumption that there is a clearer better way" for God to communicate with man, yes I am assuming there is a more effective means of communication available to the Almighty. If since the written word, we can within reason, attribute certain quotes to certain historical men, why then could not God leave behind the "law" in a manner that would not leave it to dispute and possible corruption?
If God is all-powerful, is he playing one big trick on us, knowing that his alleged word would be corrupted, that other religions and beliefs would be spawned, and that we would be at the mercy of other men? If it's not a trick, then why communicate with us at all, knowing it would be corrupted?
It's one thing to have "faith" in God after God has spoken to you and revealed himself. It's quite another to have "faith" in the MEN that recorded the alleged "law" and to have "faith" that they were not delusional or corrupt.
Let's see if the religious among us, can be guided by that which they claim they have "faith" in, and provide a thoughtful reply consistent with their beliefs.