Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:@GG: How did the Church exist before the books of the New Testament were composed if the Bible is the "ultimate authority"?

Manchu now your playing games, you know what I meant. I'm talking about modernity, because that's what we have.

As to your question about the early church. I would say that they had the gospels written at the earliest foundation, and also the fact that the early church were eyewitness, and contemporaries of the apostles and indeed Jesus. If your talking about a few generations after the Apostles, the question is more difficult. But they did have copies of the gospels and the Pauline epistles to guide them. So I would say that they did have the Bible as their ultimate authority, just not the current format. Also they were well within a few generations of the Apostles so I would guess some oral tradition was at work, especially considering that most people were illiterate at that time, to coincide with the gospels and epistles.

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thorgut wrote:Also, in regards to the line between allegory and literal meanings never causing problems
.

Who said that?

GG

@Thorgut: The famous line "the scriptures teach us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go" is misattributed to Galileo. It was actually said by Ceasare Cardinal Baronius. This man was nearly elected pope twice and is in the process of being canonized by the Church. At the time, Cardinal Baronius was the librarian of the Vatican. His remark was cited by Galileo in a letter to the Duchess of Tuscany. My point is that the matter you are referring to is somewhat more complex than you seem to indicate.

generalgrog wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thorgut wrote:Also, in regards to the line between allegory and literal meanings never causing problems
.

Who said that?

GG

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Made in us The Church, in all its long history, never assumed the Bible to be completely, literally true. That is a product of the Enlightenment, and it has ever caused the Church problems.

I was responding to this post. I assumed from the syntax the "ever" was a typo. Was I wrong?

EDIT:

Manchu wrote:@Thorgut: The famous line "the scriptures teach us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go" is misattributed to Galileo. It was actually said by Ceasare Cardinal Baronius. This man was nearly elected pope twice and is in the process of being canonized by the Church. At the time, Cardinal Baronius was the librarian of the Vatican. His remark cited by Galileo in a letter to the Duchess of Tuscany. My point is that the matter you are referring to is somewhat more complex than you seem to indicate.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to my post. How does the wrongful attribution of that quotation change the message?
The issue is that he presented a view that caused controversy due to it "contradicting" the bible, leading to his house arrest and charges of "heresy". Of course, now those sections of the bible are no longer to be taken literally, as they once were.

generalgrog wrote:Manchu now your playing games, you know what I meant. I'm talking about modernity, because that's what we have.

The scriptures are not now and have never been the "ultimate source of authority."

Manchu wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Manchu now your playing games, you know what I meant. I'm talking about modernity, because that's what we have.

The scriptures are not now and have never been the "ultimate source of authority."

I'm not sure what you are on about, possibly Pope speech?

Obviously the ultimate souce of authority is God, if that is where you are headed.

GG.......confused

Manchu wrote:@Relapse and GG: You both seem to assume that the "truth" is primarily contained in written texts. Why should this be so? The Church is older than the epistles or gospels.

We, in the LDS church, also believe that God speaks to his prophets and those prophets share the revalations with the membership, as in the ancient days, so all knowledge is not contained for us solely in books. These revelations are written down of course.

Albatross. I have edited my post and decided to start with an apology.

While we have both offended each other it behooves me to make a climb down on moral grounds. How can I defend my God if I disavow him by my reactions.

Therefore I apologise for any part of this thread by which I appeared smug arrogant or in other ways unpleasant or hostile to you. If you have umbridge at any point with what I have said and it causes you offense PM me a quote and I will reword my comment or if unable to make my point while doing so will delete it.

While putting you back up was never the intention as the thread got heated our disagreement got increasingly personal. I cannot deny may part in that.

Albatross wrote:
That you don't fully understand the concept of atheism is not my fault. Neutrality is by it's very definition atheist - by way of not subscribing to theistic beliefs. It's the above statement which lead me to not quote and challenge your post in the first place. Educating you on subject of atheism is not my responsibility.

Wiki: Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

About .com: The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.

There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.

Try to find anywhere an example definition of atheism that claims it is a lack of opinion on God. Nothing neutral in atheism, neutrality is 'no opinion'. 'Not believng in' or refusing to beleive in at any level is not 'no opinion', it's a definate choice. Likewise a stance of 'no opinion' is not atheism.
As the choice of atheism lacks firm definate proof it is as faith choice, just like any other.

Albatross wrote:
Documented miracles? No, sorry. That is valid neither as evidence or as proof - it is human testimony.

Here are some documented miracles:
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009/05/scientifically-documented-miracles.html

There are many more of course.

Testimony is evidence, if it were not law courts would never get anywhere.

Albatross wrote:

Orlanth wrote:We have pre-recorded long range accurate prediction. If Bible passages point out future events that happen as described that is evidence of the potential of omniscience and omniscience is a signiture characteristic of God.

Please don't ask me to take this seriously.

Why not? I offered serious evidence in my prior post:

The Signature of God by Grant R Jeffrey includes one such example. Now he uses the word proof instead of evidence too much for pure science, but for this he can be forgiven. He found something extraordinary. By using the Hebrew religious calender of 360 days and no other evidence except plain text passages from the Bible namely: Exodus 12:41, Jeremiah 25:11, Ezra 1:3, Ezekiel 4:3-6 and Leviticus 26:18 cross referenced with Revelations 12:6 he indicated that the exact date of the end of the exile of Israel to be 15th May 1948, the exact date of the Independence of Israel. I can go into this in more detail and go through the evidence with the thread verse by verse and see how we can come to that date if anyone is interested. It will take another text wall, full references will be given so you can follow the commentary and see for yourself.

Albatross wrote:
Any predictions which may or may not have 'come true' are no doubt as a result of pure coincidence. I am sure there are predictions made in the Bible that haven't come true. Regardless, the books were written by humans, edited, translated, re-edited...
Unreliable.

Well if Bible writers in the 5th century BC or before can show us, not through Bible Code but in plain text that Israel was being exiled for a period of time. This period of time is very specifially defined. It ended on 15 May 1948 to the day when calculated on the Hebrew religious calender. The day Israel was founded.
Day accurate predictions, in plain text, from two and a half millenia old text. I have to restrain from calling that proof let alone evidence.

The Dead Sea scrolls showed that the Book of Isaiah has not significantly changed between the modern version and the Qumran texts from the 1st century AD. In fact the Bible is known for being unusually consistent over time for a text of its age.

Albatross wrote:

Orlanth wrote:If atheism is seen as scientific 'fact', erroneously or otherwise then by absolute logical definition theism is not science and is not a fact.

Exactly. You admit yourself that there is no proof for anything you believe. That you want to play with the semiology of words like 'evidence' and 'proof' is your own business. How can atheism be a scientific fact? Again, you seem to be referring to god-denial. No-one here has said that the non-existence of god is a fact.

This doesn't challenge my point of view. I am fully aware I need faith for my position, its theism 101. Agreed how can atheism be a scientific fact, therefore you require FAITH to choose it.

Albatross wrote:

Orlanth wrote:I place a universal statement only on the single point that at some level you cannot aquire a concept of atheism (or theism) without some element of faith on the known fact that the question of the existence of God has not been conclusively settled by scientific discourse, it is a direct logical consequence.

Fair enough, but your statement is incorrect. If the question is not settled, then the logical position is not to make a leap of faith and dedicate your life to god, the logical step is to reserve judgement and not live one's life according to scripture. Which is effectively what you seem to base your faith on.

The logical step to reserve judgement is not atheism, its 'no opinion'.

Albatross wrote:
No it doesn't. I never said that. I said the default point should be not to subscribe to theist beliefs as that requires an acceptance that god exists, something which is scientifically unproven.

Sorry, that is not atheism either. Atheism is subscribing the the idea that it is or is likely God(s) do not exist.

Albatross wrote:
You have been unsuccesful in refuting anything that I posted. Your arguments stem from a misunderstanding of what atheism actually means.

Which is not so. It appears to me that you are trying to claim the middle ground of 'no opinion', which is not in itself atheism.

Albatross wrote:
If I am unconcerned about offending you it is because you come across as insufferably arogant and smug. I think you are actually a zealot, to be honest.

I apologise for this.
However I must request that you refrain from responding with ad hominem attacks with regards to the issues themselves as it can lay yourself open to a charge of hypocrasy.

I defended my corner but just because you don't like the world view that is not in itself 'arrogance', I haver attempted to put my points across patiently and politely, where I have failed to do so I apologise; but please note that surely that blanket dismissals can be seen as no less arrogant, after all you must apply your standards first to yourself for it to be valid yardstick to others.

Albatross wrote:
You claim to have 'evidence' that god exists, I ignored it originally because it seemed so risible as to be unworthy of refutation.

Thankyou that you had the courage to admit you had resorted to this strategem, but it doesn't help your arguments and to accuse me of zealotry while under under this admission is very unfair.
I don't believe your world view, but I take the time to state my case against it. It offended me that in return it appears that you are just handwaving away return comments based on the source rather than content.
please attempt to offer me the same courtesy rather than mock my arguments with a blank dismissal.

Albatross wrote:
My arguments are obviously personal, as we are discussing personal belief, and lack thereof. Don't pretend that YOU have reached any logical conclusions, because you haven't. Your faith isn't based on logic.

I believe my faith has a logical basis? yes in a very real way steps of faith have been made in my life and I cannot claim to understand everything of my faith choice. However there is room for logical cionsistency in my theology. Logic follows to its own end depending on your starting premise. Pascals wager is a famous logical premise, one that encourages faith in God. There is theistic logic, there is atheistic logic, which you are more than entitled to use to defend your position. Logic does not take sides of itself it goes where it leads.

generalgrog wrote:I'm not sure what you are on about, possibly Pope speech?

Sort of. The Deposit of Faith is made up of both Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures. One does not make sense without the context of the other. Protestants (aside from Anglicans and some high church Lutherans) have pretty much abandoned Sacred Tradition as a rejection of eccelsial authority in favor of personal interpretations of scripture. This approach is ridiculous on its face, as I have already asserted, because there was a time when there was no scripture. There were only the Apostles and their successors. These people are the bishops. Most simply put, their teachings over the millennia and the reception of those teaching into the practice of the Church, are Sacred Tradition.

@Relapse: Thank you for that clarification.

This has been quite a thread so far with all the different ideas on God's existence or non existence.
Add tothat the various differences on points of doctrine and validity of different religious texts and it's been one of the most interesting reads on Dakka I 've ever seen.
Thanks to everyone for keeping their cool on what can be a very sensitive issue to a lot of people.
It's a testament to the maturity and intellegence of the posters.

Orlanth wrote:How can you say my faith by definition not based on logic? Again that is quite blinkered. Logic follows to its own end depending on your starting premise. Pascals wager is a famous logical premise, one that encourages faith in God.

QFT. Atheism does not require faith. Faith does not require the abandonment of logic, even if one cannot come to the first premise of faith ("Credo in . . .") by empirical evidence.

Now that I have a cool head and a moment on my lunch break, let me see if I can redeem myself from my spasm Monday.

Orlanth wrote:Throughout your entire reply you fail to challenge my arguments and instead just assumed I wrote something completely different and 'refuted' that.

LOL. There is some of that hypocrisy I was ranting about earlier on like page 7.
That is exactly what happened to me when I posted that Corey Taylor blog.

@Manchu: I posted that to make a point. Why waste time arguing about silly little things? Semantics and definitions about emotions that cannot be described in words.
It was not about having to defend your religion, which was the initial response.
It was not about countering every little point he made. Yes, Manchu, I understand what he said was not 100% true, but it wasn't 100% false either.
When I was a child (raised LDS, aka Mormon), I was taught the human experience is God's test for us. All of our trials and tribulations are test to see if one is worthy to inherit the Kingdom of God. It is God's design to put us in situations (via temptation from the devil) that makes us waver from the path to righteousness.



Blanket statements are a bitch aren't they. I now realize what I posted was a blanket statement. But your response to it was equally blanketed... Stating it is simply not true... Balls.

@Everyone: Yes, I am angry about this topic. That is because this thread can be summarized like this:
Atheists have no idea what Christians think, and Christians do not understand what atheists think... Blah blah blah.

DUH!!!

But, there are people in this thread that want to educate those on the other side of the argument, in a doomed attempt to foster understanding, all the while throwing around insinuations and pissing others off.

I will put this up again. Please read it this time.

Corey Taylor wrote:And so, the question of God is an unimportant one. If people spend too much time on it they might, like many, fall into the seclusion of religion. Sectioning themselves off from society in a search for internal truth and comfort. Saying that beleivers should be held higher then non-beleivers, and spending their lives imposing it on others or living behind the divisions of its walls. When the real problems are right in front of our noses. PEOPLE need help. the WORLD needs help. And compassion, knowledge and the power to change, has and should have nothing to do with "God"

The problems have nothing to do with money, or volunteering, or giving donations. It is about tolerance. Time after time again on Dakka, I have been told I am intolerant by religious people who hide behind their beliefs and chastise me for attacking them, when I am really just calling out stupidity and hypocrisy, as I see it. Almost everyone here does it, and most take pride in pointing out the stupid things in life. I never said, NEVER SAID (I am looking at you, Frazzled. I know you are here somewhere) that religion is stupid. What I have been saying all along is:

Stupidity and hypocrisy doesn't discriminate against skin color, age, race, gender, sexually orientation, or religion... I am very guilty of these things. I am not perfect. No one is. It is like what JEB was saying a while ago: It makes you stronger when you recognize your faults.

@JEB: Well, JEB, you are a little pompous. Just saying. I know I can be rude when something rubs me the wrong way. Like being attacked for defending MDG when he said Christians piss him off. They can piss me off, too. Albatross summed it up nicely a few pages ago. It is the circumstances, not the people or the religion. Like the circumstances on this page. Everyone is trying SOOOO hard to make their point, they unintentionally (or intentionally... I am guilty of that) piss people off.

So, my point is: The fact we are discussing God is irrelevant, in my opinion. Yes, we are discussing it. That is true, but it is irrelevant. Until Christians here accept the fact that dictionary definitions cannot truly describe how an atheist feels or what it means to be atheist, just as much as the Bible cannot truly describe to an atheist how a Christian feels, the flame wars will continue...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, this will be a fun experiment to see how many people have me on ignore

@Tblock1984: TBH, I don't think you're adding anything to this discussion.

tblock1984 wrote:Now that I have a cool head and a moment on my lunch break, let me see if I can redeem myself from my spasm Monday.

Orlanth wrote:Throughout your entire reply you fail to challenge my arguments and instead just assumed I wrote something completely different and 'refuted' that.

LOL. There is some of that hypocrisy I was ranting about earlier on like page 7.
That is exactly what happened to me when I posted that Corey Taylor blog.

Did I comment on your Corey Taylor blog?

Orlanth wrote:How can you say my faith by definition not based on logic? Again that is quite blinkered. Logic follows to its own end depending on your starting premise.

I see. Let us then examine the claim that god has spoken to you. How did you reach that conclusion? Was it a dispassionate examination of the facts?

If you actually heard a voice, there are several possible reasons for this - aural hallucination has multiple causes. Did you have a fever? Were you sleep deprived? I experienced extraordinarily vivid aural hallucinations whilst in hospital with Pneumonia.

What about this:

Cryptesthesia (or cryptaesthesia) means, literally, "hidden sensation." Cryptesthesia refers to information gathered by the senses that enters conscious awareness by some other form.

The waking awareness generates a narrative based on the sensory input it receives. Input deemed irrelevant is frequently ignored or stored for later within the mind. Sometimes, however, the mind recognizes the need for that information, typically for the survival of the individual. In order to bring that information to the forefront of consciousness, the mind will transmit that material through sensory hallucinations (e.g. tactile, visual, aural) in an attempt to redirect and refocus the efforts of the individual.
This unconscious use of sensory cues and ostensibly extraneous data has been the undoing of several parapsychological experiments, particularly those dealing with ESP. It has been argued that this perception and integration of physical cues outside of the boundaries of normal waking consciousness is, in fact, responsible for all claims of extra-sensory perception.

Quite interesting. Not sure how common it is though.

There is also the possibility that you may have suffered head trauma or be suffering from a brain tumour, although I sincerely hope that this isn't the case (seriously, all banter aside).

You may even suffer from a mental illness and be unaware of it.

If it was the case that you just 'felt' the voice, perhaps it was just your subconcious mind - an inner monologue that you've misinterpreted. That might be a long-shot, actually, but it's certainly possible.

There is of course the possibility that you are simply lying. There, I said it. Not trying to flame you at all - it's a distinct possibility that you could have just made it up, at least from my perspective.

I'm not saying that any of the above is actually the case, but they are possibilities that have to be considered. Whilst they are on the table, it does not follow that believing god ACTUALLY spoke to you is a logical conclusion to draw. That said, you're free to believe whatever you want - I'm not here to try and convince anyone that god doesn't exist.

You offered some definitions of Atheism. The fact that you had to do some online research is telling.

Orlanth wrote:As the choice of atheism lacks firm definate proof it is as faith choice, just like any other.

Firm definite proof? Of what? Your talking about denial of god's existence again.

Orlanth wrote:Try to find anywhere an example definition of atheism that claims it is a lack of opinion on God.

Why? I don't need to. Newborn babies, being unaware of the concept of god, have no opinion on the matter - and as such, are atheist in a practical sense. See below.

Wiki wrote:In practical, or pragmatic, atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without resorting to the divine. The existence of gods is not denied, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.

This is pretty much how I live my life. And I DO have an opinion on god.
Since we're quoting internet sources:

Wiki also wrote:...unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions...

And I don't believe YOUR god exists because as long there is the possibility that The Old Testament is a complete man-made fabrication, given the alternative explanations, that possibility is impossible to rule out. If I can't rule that out, then I can't believe in the Abrahamic God. Again, this doesn't require faith on my part.

As for the miracle and prediction thing, same deal. Whilst possibilities rooted in reality and scientific fact (even if it is hitherto undiscovered) still exist, divine intervention can not, and should not, be ruled in. For example, is it possible that the Israelis were aware of these predictions, perhaps even subconciously? Is it possible to interpret the data in such a way as to make the prediction look plausible? Was this prediction discovered before or after the founding of the state of Israel? (it was after, IIRC) It's easy to predict things that have already happened. I've just provided two reasonable possibilites off the top of my head, so I would caution against accepting this prediction or any other like it as proof. Consider it evidence - that's up to you. But IMO it isn't evidence of the most solid type.

The logical step to reserve judgement is not atheism, its 'no opinion'.

(sigh) 'No opinion' is a-theist by it's very definition. If you have no opinion, you don't hold theistic belief therfore you are functionally atheist. I'm getting bored of this now.

Orlanth wrote:And you are not? This is a plain ad hominem attack. You know little about me. I defended my corner but because you don't like the world view that is 'arrogance'.

Not so, I have a lot of time for several christians on here. My personal feelings for you have nothing to do with your faith and everything to do with your personality, at least, inasmuch as it is represented by the posts you have made in this and other threads. Comments like 'pass me another atheist' ARE smug and arrogant, considering the decidedly shaky premise of much of what you seem to believe. Such smugness smacks of zeal. You 'know' you are right, there can be no other possibilities. Other christians here have the humility to admit that faith is difficult to maintain and requires hard work and dedication. I can respect that. You call me arrogant, but I have admitted several times that I would accept that god exists, were there sufficient proof to back it up. Stop crying 'ad hominem', that just makes it look like you want the MODs to win the argument for you. I never insulted you, I merely pointed out something about your manner that other posters, including christians, had noticed. Sorry if that bothers you, perhaps it's my mistake - perhaps you didn't mean to come across that way. I'm man enough to apologise if that is the case.

But I'm not convinced it is.

FFS, why? Look here, buddy. I am trying to explain myself from the other day. That alone is worth something. To admit I was wrong is no trivial thing for me.

But there you go again, saying I have nothing to add to the discussion. Again. Why? Can you not agree that my statement about understanding and tolerance is important to avoiding flame wars? Keep in mind my last post on this forum was two days ago in the heat of a flame war...

Or is it because I quoted this guy?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:

tblock1984 wrote:Now that I have a cool head and a moment on my lunch break, let me see if I can redeem myself from my spasm Monday.

Orlanth wrote:Throughout your entire reply you fail to challenge my arguments and instead just assumed I wrote something completely different and 'refuted' that.

LOL. There is some of that hypocrisy I was ranting about earlier on like page 7.
That is exactly what happened to me when I posted that Corey Taylor blog.

Did I comment on your Corey Taylor blog?

No, sorry. I apologize for the sloppy formatting. I quoted you because that is how I felt about Manchu's reply to my Corey post.

Manchu wrote:The Deposit of Faith is made up of both Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scriptures. One does not make sense without the context of the other. Protestants (aside from Anglicans and some high church Lutherans) have pretty much abandoned Sacred Tradition as a rejection of eccelsial authority in favor of personal interpretations of scripture. This approach is ridiculous on its face, as I have already asserted, because there was a time when there was no scripture. There were only the Apostles and their successors. These people are the bishops. Most simply put, their teachings over the millennia and the reception of those teaching into the practice of the Church, are Sacred Tradition.

Do you really want to have a Catholic theology vs Reformed theology debate here? However much I would enjoy that, I personally think it would be detrimental at this time in this thread.

GG

@Manchu - Bit harsh mate.

@tblock1984: You have said that the discussion is irrelevant (to what? I suppose you mean "useless"?) and is a"doomed attempt to foster understanding." I don't mind you quoting the guy from Slipknot. I took the time to explain to you how many of the points he made were factually wrong, after all. You called this a "blanket statement." It doesn't seem like you are interested in a dialog.

@Albatross: I didn't mean it to be.

@GG: I would say it has less to do with theology than politics.

Albatross-You forgot one other possibility. The possibility that God may have indeed talked to him. What about the millions of other people that claim to have had encounter with God. Do we assume that they must all be deranged, brain tumored or lyers as well?

That's kind of what you are suggesting. I.E. anyone that claims to have an intimate relationship, including feeling the "touch" of God must be decieved since you have never personally experianced such a thing, and you can't scientifically prove it.

GG

@Manchu - I love harsh!

@GG - That's not quite what I was saying. Sorry if it came across wrongly. My point was that those options were more likely than god actually speaking to you. To rule them out and replace them with something highly improbable would seem illogical. It was a discussion about logic in relation to certain aspects of faith.

But possible? Sure, why not?

Just to be clear, when we speak of "hearing God" or "feeling God's touch" are these metaphorical sentiments or literal descriptions? I'm not asking about examples from scripture, either, as that is a different topic. I mean contemporary examples.

@Manchu - I was referring to Orlanth's claim that he had personally spoken to god, in a literal sense. I can't speak for anyone else, mind.

generalgrog wrote:Albatross-You forgot one other possibility. The possibility that God may have indeed talked to him. What about the millions of other people that claim to have had encounter with God. Do we assume that they must all be deranged, brain tumored or lyers as well?

That's kind of what you are suggesting. I.E. anyone that claims to have an intimate relationship, including feeling the "touch" of God must be decieved since you have never personally experianced such a thing, and you can't scientifically prove it.

GG

It has often puzzeld me that 'god' is one of the few invisable (people/forces/beings) that one can claim to have spoken to and get little more than a polite smile,or at worst a "pffft" from the western world in general.
In many case people who claim to talk to "gaint invisable rabits" (just an example) find themselves in padded cells,however the practice of claiming to talk to "god" (another invisable being) is widely accepted or at least "understood".
Just because the "idea" is widely accepted does it make the action any less delusional?

I talk to Giant Invisible Rabbits! :( Stop persecuting me!!!

Manchu wrote:Just to be clear, when we speak of "hearing God" or "feeling God's touch" are these metaphorical sentiments or literal descriptions? I'm not asking about examples from scripture, either, as that is a different topic. I mean contemporary examples.

I'm talking about a few things actually.


First: The indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and what has been described as "The still, small voice of the Holy Spirit". This "still, small voice of the Holy Spirit" can be described as a "leading" a "sense" of what you think God's will is for your life. It woudl be really hard to explain this indwelling to someone that hasb't experianced it.
Second: The baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is what happened to the Church at Pentacost which was followed by speaking in tongues. John the Baptist prophesied this event when he said that "John answered them all, "I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."" (Luke 3:16)

GG

GG wrote:...speaking in tongues...

GG wrote:It woudl be really hard to explain this indwelling to someone that hasb't experianced it

Sorry, couldn't resist. Yes, I am aware that this makes me a bad person.




@GG - just a bit o' gentle teasing matey!

I believe in voices and visions. It happened in biblical times and there would be no reason for such things to stop now.
I understand that statement presupposes belief in the bible and there are more than a few people that question it's accuracy or truth.
If I tried to come up with scientific, intellectual, or other reasonings to support my views, there'd be an equal number of reasons to thump them down.
It took a lot for me to come to this faith I have in the truth of the Bible and the Book of Mormon, including an excommunication from the LDS church for about 12 years.
I had no use for things that bound me to fables or religions that seemed to favor some over others. I felt that the crucifiction was not for me, but for other people, and I was outside the bounds or care of God. I just did what I felt like and if I ended up in Hell or where ever, I was going there anyway.
It was a slow awakening for me over the course of years, but I look back on that time now and shake my head at where I was. It felt like one long and dead time to me, and now there is purpose since I finally decided to get myself reinstated.
There were no voices and visions as such for me, it's a bit like the scripture that I paraphrase here about the prophet Elijah who was in the wilderness. This is from 1Kings, 19:11:

First came a wind that broke rocks, but the Lord was not in the wind. Next came a an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. Then came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. Then came a still small voice, and that was the Lord.

I didn't get the elemental display, but that small voice came to me. It came to me in more the form of an impression tha an actual voice, but the principle is the same.

including an excommunication from the LDS church for about 12 years

Do you mean you left or that you were forced out?

Getting late again. I will quickly cover one or two points.

Albatross wrote:
I see. Let us then examine the claim that god has spoken to you. How did you reach that conclusion? Was it a dispassionate examination of the facts?

Ok, the answer comes in the 'quality'. The Bible gives us indication as to what to do when God speaks to us.

1. Any 'voice' must be compared with known Biblical teaching on the nature of God. If let us say told to do something out of character with God it isn't God.
2. The voice of God sits well with the Holy Spirit within you - Thats pretty deep and very difficult to explain to an outsider. I cannot adequately describe receiving the Holy Spirit to myself, let alone anyone else.
3. If important look for a cross reference from others who hear God.


I mentioned these to show how exacting we consider the concept of hearing God. It does not as yet answer your question.

The nearest to a 'dispassionate examination of the facts' I can give is the examples I gave of correlation of multiple instances of hearing God. While not proof independent correlation make it increasingly unlikely that the pheonomena is random. To be frank with you we are not looking for dispassionate examination of the facts at the time, all evidence is retrospective. Normally stuff like this happens in a worship service, something called the corporate gift. I hear God far more frequently in company in worship than alone. we have scriptural (not scientific) explanations for that too as joining together in worship and prayer invites the presence of God in a deeper way than alone in a daily life. at times of prayer and worship scrutinising God in a scientific manner is not the focus.

That is the best I can do to explain.

Albatross wrote:
If you actually heard a voice, there are several possible reasons for this - aural hallucination has multiple causes. Did you have a fever? Were you sleep deprived? I experienced extraordinarily vivid aural hallucinations whilst in hospital with Pneumonia.

As God 'taps into' a human to speak to one. I would not be suprised if some biological process is enabled. I don't know how its done, I only know it happens.

Albatross wrote:
What about this:

Cryptesthesia (or cryptaesthesia) means, literally, "hidden sensation." Cryptesthesia refers to information gathered by the senses that enters conscious awareness by some other form.

Cool, I could well accept that. Taking that from my point of reference our experiences form a library from which I can hypothesise God draws information to the forefront.
I am not saying that is true, but maybe from my paradigm this is an option.
My point here is that I have no problem whatsoever if prophesy suddenly 'got understood'. Its like saying 'Evolution is the method by which God creates'. The science can be read a number of ways, with or without God.

However sometimes you get information outside your frame of reference, and it doesn't account for independent correlation.
sometimes, in fact frequently we might get what is known as a 'word of knowledge' to speak to someone, often we don't know that person.

Words of knowledge are often vague when real and in fact can be faked if you do know something about the person and pretend you dont, as I will cover in the unfortunate trait of false beleivers.

Albatross wrote:
There is also the possibility that you may have suffered head trauma or be suffering from a brain tumour, although I sincerely hope that this isn't the case (seriously, all banter aside).
You may even suffer from a mental illness and be unaware of it.

Keep the banter in.

Ok crazy I can cope with, but I doubt we are all crazy. As for brain tumours, we can discount that flat out as we would have to explain why certain churches are filled with people with brain tumours evedn how that can occur. It must be something in the communion bread....

You see I am anything but an odd case (in regards to hearing God that is) in the churches. Many of us, in some congregations I would safely say most of us claim to hear God.

Let us assume I had a brain tumour, because I hear more or less what others do unless they all have brain tumours I would find that hard to indicate a conclusion.

Albatross wrote:
There is of course the possibility that you are simply lying. There, I said it. Not trying to flame you at all - it's a distinct possibility that you could have just made it up, at least from my perspective.

If I am lying nothing I will be able to say can indicate either way, after all lies can be compounded.

No problem with that as a caveat and not offendeed by the question. It only gets tiring if it becomes a Modus Operandi to deal with religion:

10 If Detect religion = yes
20 Say "More lies!"
30 END

I have no motive to lie, but sadly that is not a good answer either. I have been stung before believing a testimony that was made up to look good, it is frustrating when that happens and damaging to all who love God. I believe in miracles but frankly I was really reluctant to post links on sites about miracles here. While I know there are many and in fact the first link I came to was of quality source I have to admit that many miracle testimonies today ARE frauds, especially on the internet. Some preacher wants a bigger offering and lies about their ministry to get it. Generally you can pick out the decent ones from the bad, there are signs (human ones not light from heaven ones) by which you can tell a dodgy preacher from a honest one. The emphasis on preaching the offering is always a good one.

Albatross wrote:
If it was the case that you just 'felt' the voice, perhaps it was just your subconcious mind - an inner monologue that you've misinterpreted. That might be a long-shot, actually, but it's certainly possible.

This is what it often is. Suprised to hear that. but yes seriously.
This is why we apply the tests mentioned at the beginning of the post. Hearing God comes into our heads similar but not the same as our own imaginations. When we hear something we really do have to take some degree of care.

Albatross wrote:
I'm not saying that any of the above is actually the case, but they are possibilities that have to be considered. Whilst they are on the table, it does not follow that believing god ACTUALLY spoke to you is a logical conclusion to draw. That said, you're free to believe whatever you want - I'm not here to try and convince anyone that god doesn't exist.
But I'm not convinced it is.

Point accepted. I am not deluded enough to think that I can suddenly convert you or fear that I was going to lose my faith by listening to you. This was never in my mind at any point, nor a motive for posting here.

All I can say is that hearting God is a privilege, not an illness. I cannot earn it, it is from grace because God loves us and wants to talk to us.

My final point is that the 'inner voice' does not exclusively speak to believers. I know of testimonies of the voice described that 'feels' like God speaking. I remember secular experiences of people who were asked by the still small voice not to do this or that, noticing that the comments made were in keeping with God's character and wondering.
In retrospect I heard God before I was a Christian myself. I remember very clearly in 1987 in Birmingham not to take a particular route by the same voice I now know. I was told why too. I ignored the voice, I was mugged on cue.
Occasionally I hear the same sort of thing, this particular point could well be my imagination, but when it is harmless just to obey I just obey. 'Take this route rather than that route' is no skin off my nose, and not something I can see if it fits the Biblical pattern of God. Might something wrong have happened, I will never know.
If this had became a frequent event I might have cause to see a counsellor. Again hearing God has its dangers if you become deluded enough to 'hear God everywhere'. I believe that can happen even from a a genuine start.

@Manchu,

I left, because I didn't think at the time the LDS or any religion had anything real to offer me.