I was reading the stories of David in the Old Testament, and it was like God had nothing better to do that chat with David all the time:
David: What should I do, Oh Lord?
God: Um, take your army…uh…west? Yes, west!
David: Okie dokie!
later
David: I’m bored.
God: Me too. Why don’t you take a new wife?
David: Sounds like a great idea!
later
God: You there David?
David: Wassup?
God: Nothing much…what you up to?
Then, in like the book of Solomon, God stops talking to anybody and from that point forward all the way through Revelations, he never speaks again except through prophets, dreams or angels.
The idea is that David, being a man after God’s own heart, could actually hear God. It’s as if he is a prophet-king. I think the lack of God’s voice was symbolic of how far Israel had fallen. David is the last (and first, really) king who was truly devoted to God.
ETA: Remember that God didn’t want them to have a king anyways, and really only wanted the prophets to rule. Moses, Joshua, the Judges–they are all depicted as prophets first, and leaders second.
Sounds like God chose people of bad character to be his people after his own heart. David was not a very good person, He murdered and was an adulterer, Moses was a murderer, then Joshua(after God gave the 600+ commandments, and Moses had died), then went into a city and killed all the people, innocent or not, just to get the land. That would mean God wanted or loved land more than some of his other children? Of course this is how some human summed it up. People follow a lot of bad people because they think the person is truthful, when they just are using the people who follow them blindly. As an examp;e: Look at the people who have committed suicide, because they followed some soft spoken man they thought had their interest at heart, or were going to go to an eternal paradise!
In the Book of Acts, chapter 9, God has a bit of a very direct chat with Saul of Tarsus.
*As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”* Acts 9:3-6 NIV
That conversation leads to Saul’s conversion, and (as the Apostle Paul) he had quite a say in establishing all Christianity.
As far as the daily chats go, my impression is that many modern Christians, at least, use language as direct as David’s in describing their interactions with God. Certainly many modern leaders make similar statements. They sometimes couch such interactions as “revelations” (Joseph Smith; Harold Camping) but it’s just as common for preachers and lay folk alike to describe an interaction as if it is a direct voice.
(Now the fact that they are all getting told sumpin’ different…well; that doesn’t seem to be the point you are raising…)
There are people today (even on this board) that take their inner thoughts and credit it to God. If humans are god then Yes, but if not then… No. Jim Jones had people believeing he was inspired by God to lead the people who believed him and look how many took their lives! The point is: why does God tell people contradicting things? I think it is just believing that the person who is saying God told them something is true;I am a skeptic, to me it is just their own mind believing what they want to believe! Why do some people believe God told a Moses one thing and Muhammed another? Both couldn’t be right unless God changed His mind!
The Bible tells us that Jesus, who, according to Christians is God, talked directly to a lot of people, and he wasn’t B.C. at all. (Well, only by 6 years or so. :p)
Paul’s chat with him on the road to Damascus may have been the end of it, though. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand even Mohammed only got to chat directly with the archangel Gabriel.
Yes, let’s attack the religion, proving you don’t really want to know the answer to the question as offered.
David was the only one mentioned who followed God’s own heart. But note that, when he did the despicable thing, that was the only time you see him having to have a prophet tell him what God wanted to say. In other words, his sin cost him his ability to hear God, a theme that has been taught in Judeo-Christianity forever.
I’ll admit that Joshua is a hard one, but Moses is easy. He killed the guy, ran away, and had to become a different man. God only talks to him after he’s lived the rest of his life. It’s easy to believe he offered atonement. And it’s not like he heard from God before that, anyways. If anything, it seems like political maneuvering on God’s part–this guy being from the royal family could actually get an audience with the Pharaoh.
The only explanation offered for Joshua’s stuff was that the people somehow deserved how they were treated. It really does mess with the idea that God is actually good, and not sometimes very cruel. The idea that Joshua was only covering up his own decisions by claiming God wanted him to do it is an intriguing hypothesis.
I am not attacking a religion I am just stating a fact,and stating my wondering why such a being who was supposed to love all of his children treated some one way and some another. A good father doesn’t kill some of his children so others can prosper! How do you know or can prove that Moses was truthful?