Active Now

Randy D
Pet Eater
Zack
my2cents
Discussion » Questions » Religion and Spirituality » Three questions, mainly for the religious but open to all.
myonemaster

Three questions, mainly for the religious but open to all.

How can you tell the difference between someone that converses with a god and someone that simply believes they converse with a god?

If people disagree over an interpretation in any 'holy book', how could their differing interpretations be tested (in our lifetime) in order to know who is correct?

What is the difference between a god that does not appear to exist and a god that does not exist?

Posted - February 13, 2018
Tags : None

Responses


  • 7280
    When you meet a saint, you will know it...Speaking to God is an art. He will teach you how to do it.... 

    Faith is a gift from God and there are numerous degrees of it---"drive your own car"....

    A god that does not exist, cant; a God that does not seem to exist, can....


    The essence of the new reality that Christ brought involves all knowledge coming from a personal relationship with God....If you want proof, you have to deal with Him directly....

    He has this great respect for "free will."---He will not put you in a position of demonstrating His existence so conclusively that you have no choice but to believe in Him....(He doesn't was you to marry him for His money or from your fear.)...

    (If you understand this, no explanation is necessary, if you don't none is possible.  If the latter, I suggest you deal directly with God and stop looking for external proof.)
      February 13, 2018 10:52 AM MST
    0

  • 591
    Well done Tom another fine example of saying nothing, in other words a cop out but there again you are very good with your smoke and mirrors religion.
    'He has this great respect for "free will."---He will not put you in a position of demonstrating His existence so conclusively that you have no choice but to believe in Him....(He doesn't was you to marry him for His money or from your fear.)' a quick look in your buybull will show that statement for the utter BS that it is.
      February 13, 2018 4:02 PM MST
    0

  • 7280
    Are you a Trump supporter????---They usually don't "don't get it" also.

    Thanks for demonstrating the statement in my answer that "If you understand this, no explanation is necessary, if you don't none is possible."

    If God has not revealed Himself to you already, He will eventually.  And if He has---and you "just didn't get it"---He usually tries again until you purposefully and clearly send Him away.

      February 14, 2018 12:18 PM MST
    0

  • 591
    I would not piss on trump if he were on fire, having said that, I fail to see what bearing my political views have on the matter at hand, seems like more of your smoke and mirrors. It comes as no surprise to me that you find your claims/beliefs to be impossible to explain.
      February 14, 2018 4:15 PM MST
    0

  • 7280
    It's an analogy---perhaps a concept above your understanding?

    Some people don't understand my answers---But if that is really a picture of you rather than an image taken from "Mind Blown" I can see where you could use a little more computing power upstairs.
      June 8, 2018 4:19 PM MDT
    0

  • 22891
    i dont think you can always tell the difference
      February 13, 2018 7:33 PM MST
    1

  • 5835
    "How can you tell the difference between someone that converses with a god and someone that simply believes they converse with a god?"

    Are you happy or do you only tell yourself you're happy?

    "If people disagree over an interpretation in any 'holy book', how could their differing interpretations be tested (in our lifetime) in order to know who is correct?"

    If your holy book actually came from a supreme being, you have no business interpreting it. The only question is whether it is correctly translated and properly applied. It is within human intellect to assess whether you are reading what the book actually says.

    "What is the difference between a god that does not appear to exist and a god that does not exist?"

    What is the difference between a truck you don't see coming and a truck that is not coming?
      February 13, 2018 9:39 PM MST
    0

  • 591
    'Are you happy or do you only tell yourself you're happy' That is what the individual feels, not being that person I cannot say whether the individual is happy of feigning happiness.
    Surely if the book actually came from a supreme being then there would be no room for ambiguity, hence no room for any possible misinterpretation. 
    'What is the difference between a truck you don't see coming and a truck that is not coming?' Noise
      February 14, 2018 4:57 PM MST
    0

  • 5835
    "Surely if the book actually came from a supreme being then there would be no room for ambiguity, hence no room for any possible misinterpretation. "

    It is amazing how stupid a man can be when his position depends on not understanding something.

    That is to say, the human mind is quite capable of finding confusion in anything. Absolutely anything.
      February 15, 2018 2:20 AM MST
    0

  • 591
    Surely if the book actually came from a supreme being then the supreme being would be well aware of the flaws within his own creations that would lead to the complete fcuk up we have today because this mythical supreme being is incapable of communicating his/her/its message in such a way that cannot be taken for anything other than what it is.
      February 15, 2018 3:13 AM MST
    0

  • 46117
    Three questions should have three questions. 

    Not three questions on one question.

    The first one is none of anyone's business but the one who the message is for.

    The second one again is between the person being tested and God

    The third question is ridiculous.
      February 14, 2018 6:25 AM MST
    0

  • 591
    I must ask myself if you have ever completed any questionnaires or indeed sat any kind of exams, I ask simply because if you had then you would know that it is common for questions to contain multiple parts when related.

    1 That would be fine if the person who claims to be having the said conversation kept it to themself but as most seem to have the urge to share them with all and sundry then it very much comes into the public domain, Bush claiming having been told directly by god to invade Iraq and the cost in both human life and untold misery for millions being a prime example.

    2 As above if they kept their opinions to themself we would not even know about them and this question would not be getting asked.

    3 Care to explain why you think it rediculous?
      February 14, 2018 8:07 PM MST
    0

  • 1393
    Q "Three questions, mainly for the religious but open to all.
    How can you tell the difference between someone that converses with a god and someone that simply believes they converse with a god?

    If people disagree over an interpretation in any 'holy book', how could their differing interpretations be tested (in our lifetime) in order to know who is correct?

    What is the difference between a god that does not appear to exist and a god that does not exist?"




    1. Here I expect they both believe that they are conversing with a god. I'm not sure where the information comes from that the first one actually is but the second one isn't. I'm trying to pin down the question to make a stab at an answer easy but "a god" could be any god, and one "a god" could be different to the other "a god". I suppose you'd ask each to identify his "a god". You'd then have to have your own benchmark for what each "a god" is likely to say and then judge accordingly. For example, if a guy says he converses with Krishna, and you ask him, "well, what has Krishna been saying to you?" Now you have to know, or have your own opinion, of what Krishna is and is not likely to say in order to judge whether the guy is making it up or is likely to be talking to Krishna.  I hope you get the drift. Mind you if the judge himself claims he converses with Krishna then he can ask Krishna to confirm the guy's claim. :) :)

    2. Whichever interpretation has the best support from within the scriptures or sacred writings of that religion would be a good start.

    3. Could this be like a CEO that's never in office because he's out playing golf most of the time and a CEO that hasn't been appointed yet? [the company keeps running by following laid down procedures]


      February 14, 2018 3:39 PM MST
    0

  • 591
    'Here I expect they both believe that they are conversing with a god.' then why the sweet fcuk shoud I believe either of them?
      February 15, 2018 6:30 AM MST
    0

  • 1393
    Why should you believe either. As I implied, you don't have to. It depends on whether you trust them and find what they're saying to you to be reasonable, believable and convincing. It's the same with everything you've heard, been told of or taught about since you were born. Some you threw out there and then, some you have thrown out since,  some you have modified and others you're still holding on to till this day. We all go through the same process with the millions of bits of information that come our way as we go through life. Our views are shaped by the sum total of the bits of information we have decided to keep. If we change them, then our views change too.
      February 15, 2018 8:18 AM MST
    1

  • 135
    Well I know that it would take one hell of a lot convincing for me to reach a point that I would trust any man who said he was having conversations with any god. I have yet to hear any reasonable, believable and/or convincing points coming from anyone claiming that a god speaks to them.
      June 8, 2018 6:26 AM MDT
    1

  • 1393
    "it would take one hell of a lot convincing for me" and for me too. I expect I'm with you on everything you've said.

    We have writings that are regarded as scriptures which some people claim to be from God. I would suggest we first look to see if the writings themselves claim to be from a non-human source. If they don't then the absence weakens the claims of those who make such claims about the writings. Where the writings themselves claim to be from a non-human source then we need to examine the contents and see if they are consistent with the claim. 
      June 8, 2018 12:11 PM MDT
    1

  • 135
    I have yet to see any that claim to be from divine sources that live up to the claim of being divine.
      June 8, 2018 12:21 PM MDT
    1

  • 1393
    things normally pass or fail depending on the criteria set . What is/are your criteria?
      June 8, 2018 3:05 PM MDT
    0

  • 135
    I would say that before any writing is even worthy of consideration of being divinely written or inspired, it should be without error or contradiction and none I have read so far meet that criteria. Surely that is not to much to ask of a divine being.
      June 8, 2018 11:22 PM MDT
    1

  • 1393
    "Surely that is not to much to ask of a divine being." >>> absolutely not. You're being very reasonable. We could quite justifiably increase the criteria to include 

    a] whether the scripture is one, without versions, and whether one part recognises the others.

    b] whether it is respectable in language and tone and free from vulgarities and gross immoralities

    c] whether it claims or agrees with claims that it is from a divine source

    d] Whether that claim has been compromised, for example, by signs that it has been corrupted or interfered with

    e] Whether its statements on what is observable and arguable are largely consistent with modern knowledge and reasoning

    f] whether it is consistent with itself

    g] Whether its theology is based on mythological beliefs or logical reasoning

    h] Whether it is universal in appeal or mostly geographically or ethnically confined

    i] whether it offers practical and beneficial guidance on personal and social life

    j] Whether it has at any time been implemented for a significant period and proved itself to be practical and beneficial

      June 9, 2018 8:40 AM MDT
    0

  • 6098
    Those looking to simply exalt themselves will use their "conversations with God" to do so.  All others will simply praise God.  Because we don't need to "converse" with God except one-way conversation to help us get to know God better.  God has revealed himself to us in The Bible and in nature.  


    There will always be many disagreements over interpretation of Scripture and that is good. Religion is after all not a matter of "rules" and what is "correct" or not but of lifestyle and devotion. 


    Belief in God is a matter of faith and not of our own doing because God calls us to believe.  If we believe that God exists, though we may sometimes question that belief, that is it.  If we believe God does not appear to exist then God does not exist to us. 





    This post was edited by officegirl at June 8, 2018 7:35 AM MDT
      June 8, 2018 7:33 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023
    Your second point is wrong.
    Rules and "what is correct" are ENTIRELY what religion is about.

    Lifestyle and devotion are a spiritual matter.

    And religion and spirituality are seldom the same.
      June 8, 2018 3:27 PM MDT
    0

  • 46117
    1.  CONFIRMATION

    Proof is in the witnessing of what was said and what happened because of it.


    2.  What has been said that needs any proof  whatsoever?  We don't live to examine our lives here before we die and judge what is true and what is not true.  We live by the instinct to do good see good and be good and when we fall short of that, we feel bad.

    3.  There is no difference at all.  The God that we all see does not appear to exist but those who cannot see anything unless it is right in their faces, will think that means he is not real. 
      June 8, 2018 7:37 AM MDT
    0