Why do christians think god communicates with warm fuzzy feelings instead of direct verbal speach?

[Drich]

[quote='Darkstar' pid='368362' dateline='1354337202']

[quote]I always get confused because church is on Sunday. [/quote]Because of the observance of the Sabbath Church defaulted to the following day. Which is the first day of the week.But some claim that a mandate by Constantine in A.D. 321 “changed” the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. On what day did the early church meet for worship? Scripture never mentions any Sabbath (Saturday) gatherings by believers for fellowship or worship. However, there are clear passages that mention the first day of the week. For instance, Acts 20:7 states that “on the first day of the week we came together to break bread.” In 1 Corinthians 16:2 Paul urges the Corinthian believers “on the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income.” Since Paul designates this offering as “service” in 2 Corinthians 9:12, this collection must have been linked with the Sunday worship service of the Christian assembly. Historically Sunday, not Saturday, was the normal meeting day for Christians in the church, and its practice dates back to the first century.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Saturday-Sunday.html


[quote]I'm not saying that god did not side with Jesus, just that god let Jesus do something that constituted as work. Now, if god wants to reinterpret his rules to include the intent of the work, then I guess he can do that...I think.[/quote]Constitutes Work according to whom? That is the point here. Christ is showing the contrast between the traditional/religious defination and what God has indended.

this is true even now. god is not a respecter of the traditions of man even if they are directed at worshiping Him, for the sake of the appearance of Holyness. The story of the 'Good Sameritian' is another example of this.

[quote]The rules are in and of themselves god's nature? God is not truly omnipotent?[/quote]God is not Omnipotent as we have redefined the word. God Can not go against His own nature, therefore by our defination of the word does not qualifiy for that title. (That is why there are so many easy paradoxes that can be derived from a traditional view of the omni aspects of God.)

[quote]Also, is his inability to go against his nature why he needed Jesus? [/quote]Yes, It is also the reason Christ said He did not come to abolish the Law but to full fill it. Christ had to meet the standard that the Nature of God demanded for the full fillment or attonement of sin.

[quote](honest question) Because Jesus preaches love and forgiveness, whereas Yahweh constantly incites violence against people he doesn't like.[/quote]The Father's standard of Death and destruction is the standard in wich we wold all be subject to IF not for the sacerfice of Christ. It is Because Christ literally took upon Himself all the wrath and punishment due each one of us we are allowed to know Peace love and mercy. It is also because Christ did this that we are expected to inturn show the same peace love and mercy we have been shown or we will be subject to God's wrath.(The parable of the unmerciful servant illustrates this.)

[quote]Exactly. Dirch himself has said that no surviving bible is 100% accurate, and that nor is any interpretation.[/quote]
That is why We are not responsiable for a perfect bible. We are simple responsiable for what God has given us. (The story of the talents explain this.)