No. Nor does it need to. There’s no rational reason to believe that anyone, anywhere, has ever communicated with God in any way in either direction, even if he exists, which we also have no rational reason to believe. Comparing that to talking to children, which millions of people do so every day with an overwhelming evidence that they do so, is simply silly. The two things aren’t remotely comparable.
I have seen this question addressed in Christian writings/teachings. They say that, if a Christian feels that God has spoken to her or is directing her to do something, that she is correct or that she is mistaken are both very real possibilities. Reality checks include whether the “message” is consistent with what is generally known of God (e.g. through the Bible), consultation with fellow believers (especially those with more maturity and wisdom), and subjecting it to one’s own reason and conscience.
No technology necessary. Psilocybin Mushrooms have been doing the trick for years.
On the other hand, man has put God into a helmet.
The existence of hundreds of different denominations within Christianity testifies to the fact that most Christians think the line to God isn’t very reliable for everyone.
Problem: What if you receive a communication from a supernatural source that tells you to kill your son? Because according to the Bible, God told Abraham to do exactly that. Now, God also told Abraham not to do it after all, before he actually stuck the knife in, but Abe still intended to proceed with the sacrifice. Was Abraham wrong to heed the Voice of God, telling him to do a very unGodly thing?
There is a definite problem when you combine the belief that God speaks to you with the belief that whatever God does is, by definition, good. Anything, without exception, can be excused when you combine these not-too-uncommon beliefs.
Of course, it can and will be argued that reason should lead to the conclusion ‘hey, this is bullshit’, but still, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral stands as an example of why it might not be the case that Christians just go chasing, unthinkingly, impulsively, on what they believe to be a fresh revelation.
It seems to me that this would only be a problem if you demand perfect fidelity between the lessons of the Torah and the lessons of the Gospels. Maybe Abraham was absolutely correct to kill his son, maybe not. But Jesus presented a new deal for believers, so what God asked Abraham to do becomes irrelevant. For a Christian, the question would then become “Would Jesus ask you to kill your own son?” Which I think results in a rather different answer.
Of course the history of practically every church founded in his name suggests that this is not an obvious choice, but there you go.
It could be argued that were God to communicate with a person He would do so in such a way that the receiver could not doubt that they had communicated with God. I don’t just mean a “sure feeling” but that the receiver could reason out the truth and be in no doubt about what had happened.
But then, that begs the question of why when God communicates with humans generally (whether through sacred books, his works, miracles or whatever), he doesn’t do so unambiguously – why is it that people can see such things and still doubt the message? 
We can’t say Jesus speaks to us through the Gospels as it was one of his followers who said he said it. Jesus didn’t write anything except in the sand and who knows what that was?
Monavis
As far as I know, the Gospels aren’t even from the mouths of the disciples that walked with him.
Perhaps it is because what is attributed to God to one person is different to another and God tells different people different things. I would think God would not contradict Himself.
Monavis
I think you can know if someone is truly in touch with God by what they do. Jesus said: “you will know them by their fruits.” When Luke asked Yoda how to recognize the truth, Yoda replied “by its peace and quiet.” If there is a question of whether something is of God, I look for the amount of caring and compassion in someone. It is hard to do wrong if you really care about others.
Abraham may well have been a special case, since at the time of that incident, Abraham had already had a long history of talking to God, doing (or not doing) what God directed him to do, even arguing with God. I don’t think the Biblical story intends for us to have any doubt that it was God’s voice that Abraham heard and recognized.
Also, this may have taken place before God made the general announcement that human sacrifice was not an acceptable way of getting on his good side.
Even so, there are different interpretations of this story, some of which do claim that Abraham was indeed wrong to heed the command to sacrifice his son so readily and unquestioningly.
And here we have the problem. The answer you were looking for was a big fat NO! Not maybe.
Even so, it seems to me that most of what is attributed to him presents a reasonably coherent picture, such that we can say with some confidence that Jesus would approve of caring for the sick and needy, and would not approve of holding grudges or setting someone else’s legs on fire. Even an entirely fictional character like Sherlock Holmes can speak to us, if only to say, “I trust that no one imagines I would in any way endorse Conan Doyle’s conclusions regarding fairies and the supernatural.”
It is truly terrible when someone speaks dogmatically claiming to present the Absolute Truth on an issue he cannot possibly know the full answer to.
:dubious:
The coherent picture I take away from Jesus is “When you see somebody doing something that offends your sensibilities, you should immidiately physically assault them, knock over their tables and break their stuff; generally using force to make the world the way you want it.” 
What distinguishes Jesus from any fictional character? I mean, we know that his stories were written by people who didn’t know him, and are therefore likely about as accurate as George Washington’s wooden teeth, cherry tree, and money-throwing abilities. We tend to embellish our heroes, after all, and attribute to them things that sound cool, but which they didn’t actually say or do.
If all we know about Jesus are the fictionalized accounts of men, what makes him a better source of insight than, say, Captain Planet? Or Jon-Luc Picard?
“Absolute Truth” ? No. Is the evidence vastly, overwhelmingly on my side ? Yes. Does the other side have any evidence beyond the unsupported, and thus empty claims of believers ? No. Do the religious have a history of being wrong when they make claims that can be checked ? Yes.
Jesus warned about it (“wolves in sheep’s clothing”). But it is a good question: when I see those TV “evangelists” in their $5000 suits, blathering away-I tells me that there are plenty of wolves out there. :smack:
Billions of people every day, talk to God. They pray. The kneeling child says, “Bless mommy and daddy.” Adults pray, and some even when they aren’t in church. Some people make a living praying. Countless people beseech God to damn something or other when things go wrong. Does God answer these requests? How could you tell if the corner of the coffee table is damned?
Lots of people believe that God (or Jesus, or an angel) spoke to them. I know a few of them. They’re sincere enough, I guess. I believe they are mistaken, sincerely mistaken.
The problems come when the illusory voice of God tells them to do something to affect other people’s lives. That’s when it can get very tricky, and even dangerous.