I think I often do forget that we really have radically different notions of God, that the word itself means something different for you than for me. So please do forgive me- my comment was reflecting that I had forgotten this about us, and having forgotten this, that was creating confusion for me re: your attitude.

However, I still maintain that anything that makes people think of something higher than themselves is ultimately a good thing. Period.

The question, “Why can’t God reveal Himself in a tree?” is too generic. I never said God couldn’t. The more specific question would be, “Does God show us the face of Jesus in a tree,” and the answer to that would be “no.” He revealed Jesus clearly enough for all to see on a tree long ago.

Your comments are difficult, of course, in that when you say “God” and I say “God,” we’re referring to two different (and in reality, mutually exclusive) concepts. Further, our concepts of how God communicates to human beings, as well as our capability to receive such communication, differs significantly.

You seem much more concerned with a person’s existential experience with “God,” and how God lets different people come to Him in different ways – whichever they “respond to” best. I believe not a single one of us “responds to” God (that whole “sin” teaching radically divides our camps), and that Jesus and only Jesus was and is capable of redeeming us from that condition.

So to hear random speculations about how God is giving us or not giving us a sign is saddening to me. And particularly, to read a non-committal response from a Roman Catholic who should know better (as far as Christians are concerned) is a bit frustrating. But again (I’ve never managed to get this point across well, apparently), none of this is an comes from a position of know-it-all pride. It’s not sad and frustrating because, golly gee, if other folks would just open up their eyes and see things my way, everything would be ok. Rather, it’s sad and frustrating because Jesus is the only hope for the crime rate in Rochester, for peace, for understanding God’s communication to us, for saving us from ourselves and the mess we’ve made.

And on those points I suppose we shall always disagree.

Because to be honest, why not? Why can’t God reveal himself in a tree? And why not be humble enough in the face of a mystery that perhaps one does not share (I am taking it for granted that you don’t see Jesus in the tree- and, probably, I wouldn’t either. I can’t even see pictures in those stupid “Magic Picture” posters- God in a tree as a physical actual sight is just too advanced for my poor second rate eyes) to acknowledge that, just because one doesn’t get it, does not invalidate a things existence?

It seems that God uses whatever God needs to do to gather his creation up into him. Some people respond well to theology and weighty matters of the brain. Some people respond well to miracles and mysteries. Some people respond well to simple loving kindness. SOme people respond well to the charge to live life of devotion and sacrifice.

Anyway, I guess I’m not really understanding your reaction all that well. It seems the article is essentially about people attempting to interpret an experience, and that this experience feels special to them and makes them think more about God. Who can really be upset about that?

Stretch?