How can we know God's "voice?"

[Guest]

My whole life, I knew I was different from every one else. I was told by my grandmother, who is an Orthodox Roman Catholic Puerto Rican, that God selected me to become a nun. Throughout grade school, middle school and well into high school, I was groomed and well versed in my vocation. Now, I would be lying if I said that I did not believe I was God's child because I have always felt His presence and Love. However, I was never able to reconcile the Mary story or all of the reckless devotion to various saints.

As the time drew nearer for me to enter the community, my questions and fears bubbled up, choking off my air and patience. I felt suffocated and unsteady. I proceeded to go on a 30-day water fast on my 18th birthday for guidance and direction. I knew that all I needed to do was seek out God's Will and He would make it apparent in my life.

By His divine mercy, I was allowed the opportunity to meet and share my life with a devout Methodist family. They permitted me to share their home on weeknights for study and reflections. It was no wonder that when I decided to begin personal fast, it was the season of Lent.

Towards the end of my fast, I went with the wife to the church for Sunday services and I heard for the first time the Gospel..." There is no God but God and Christ is His Son" I immediately fell to the floor and knew I belonged to Christ. I too, made a commitment to Christ that night, ten years ago.

Praise God, right? Well, not exactly.

 

[JoJo]

But those questions designed to belittle the believer's experiences, views or opinions can be unproductive and hurtful.

Then you have misunderstood the intent of the questions. They are not intended to belittle. They are intended to point out inconsistencies of a given perspective.

If a question is designed to belittle someone's beliefs, then my understanding of the inquirer's intent has nothing to do with it. It is either designed to belittle or it isn't. If it is, then it can be unproductive and hurtful.

Perhaps you speak for yourself if you intend "to point out inconsistencies of a given perspective." But in my six years of experience debating online and defending my faith in Christ, most questions have clearly served their purpose in belittling, refuting and demeaning Christianity.

 

[mondar]

But those questions designed to belittle the believer's experiences, views or opinions can be unproductive and hurtful.

Then you have misunderstood the intent of the questions. They are not intended to belittle. They are intended to point out inconsistencies of a given perspective.

If a question is designed to belittle someone's beliefs, then my understanding of the inquirer's intent has nothing to do with it. It is either designed to belittle or it isn't. If it is, then it can be unproductive and hurtful.

Perhaps you speak for yourself if you intend "to point out inconsistencies of a given perspective." But in my six years of experience debating online and defending my faith in Christ, most questions have clearly served their purpose in belittling, refuting and demeaning Christianity.

Jo Jo, So far your main argument is to throw ad-hominids upon minnesota, and simply to restate your claims. In accusing him of trying to belittle or demean you and Christianity, you attempt to rally emotional support. Why dont you keep the discussion on a higher level of rhetoric? Why lower yourself to the "I am insulted by that question" mentality?

 

[Orion]

If our criteria for knowing God's voice is faith or simply knowing, then we run a real danger of conflicts between believers. Consider the following.

Believer A says God said X. Believer B says God did not say X. How do they resolve the conflict? Well, compare X to the Bible. X passes the Bible test. Next, it has been suggested they pray about it. Well, after prayer both believers are still convinced of their own perspectives. How do we resolve this conflict? Well, let's bring in two more believers. After more prayer, the split is even with two believing God said X and two believing He did not. Thus, we have two witnesses in favor and two against. How do we resolve it?

That is the problem which arises with the faith or simply knowing approach. It leads to an impasse. How do we find a way around this impasse?

Case in point, . . . . those who firmly believe that "5 point Calvanism" is correct, vs. those who firmly follow "salvation by faith alone". Both are contadictory. Both cannot be correct. BOTH believe they got their theology via "the voice of God".

*disclaimer: This is NOT to start a debate on who is "correct", on these two fronts.

 

[Cornelius]

For me, like JoJo, it is in thought form. But not just a thought, like ones I think, it is a complete and finished thought all at once...before I even have a chance to even think of thinking, as though someone else used my mind to think and I simply observed. It's really hard to explain . He doesn't speak like this to me every day, and I could probably count the times it has happened on one hand.

A friend of mine described it very well. Its like a ZIP file in a computer. You open it and its there immediately. Like all the info arrives at the same time and THEN you get to think about it. For me its like that too.

Sometimes when I have a conversation, a thought comes, that is related to the conversation (This happens a lot when I speak to a friend of mine about Christian principles and the Word ) This thought is related but comes from another angle and confirms our conversation . It always feels as if the Lord is listening and then quickly adds something to our conversation.

But the Lord can speak in many other ways.Sometimes its slow. It takes me the whole week sometimes to discern what He is saying. And sometimes its quick. Sometimes He quickens a scripture, or even words written in an add. Anything is possible.

I don't know if this will make sense, but its almost as if I "hear" Him in my solar plexus.

 

[Guest]

JoJo,

This is kind of funny, actually. We are talking past each other. When you posted your last response, I was wondering what you were talking about. So, I went back to read your previous message and realized I had misunderstood it. Then I was curious why. So I went further back in the exchange. When you were talking about the "questions" part of my summary, I assumed you were talking about the questions you quoted by merlow and myself earlier. Why? Well, my summary was not intended as two separate statements, but one complete idea -- a faith which does not doubt or question. The "question" element was not intended to standalone, but as part of the whole idea. This idea can be seen within my response to Aero_Hudson. Hence, I misunderstood you because you misunderstood me.

 

[Guest]

Jo Jo, So far your main argument is to throw ad-hominids upon minnesota, and simply to restate your claims. In accusing him of trying to belittle or demean you and Christianity, you attempt to rally emotional support. Why dont you keep the discussion on a higher level of rhetoric? Why lower yourself to the "I am insulted by that question" mentality?

To be fair, unless she's now attempting a form of rhetorical spin, her response was not intended as an attack on me. I doubt she is attempting to spin it though.

 

[mondar]

Case in point, . . . . those who firmly believe that "5 point Calvanism" is correct, vs. those who firmly follow "salvation by faith alone". Both are contadictory. Both cannot be correct. BOTH believe they got their theology via "the voice of God".

*disclaimer: This is NOT to start a debate on who is "correct", on these two fronts.

Heh, OK, its not an attempt at a debate, I would hope it is an attempt at a bad joke.

5 point Calvinists have written book after book affirming and defending sola fide (justification by faith alone). 5 point Calvinists may not be the only people defending sola fide, but they are some of the major proponents. Not only are the two theologies compatible, but I never yet met even one 5 point Calvinist that denies sola fide.

*** I am going to admit that I have never understood the big Calvinist bugaboo. However, I would caution you to beware, there might be one of those nasty 5 point Calvinists lurking somewhere around this board. {Mondar peers around the board members to see if he sees anyone has a "C" branded on their forehead!}

 

[Orion]

mondar, my example may not have been perfect, but there are many churches that have differing doctrine from other denominations, and both sides claim "Holy Spirit inspiration of their doctrine". That was my point. ;)

 

[mondar]

mondar, my example may not have been perfect, but there are many churches that have differing doctrine from other denominations, and both sides claim "Holy Spirit inspiration of their doctrine". That was my point. ;)

LOL, OK, no problem.

 

[JoJo]

Jo Jo, So far your main argument is to throw ad-hominids upon minnesota, and simply to restate your claims. In accusing him of trying to belittle or demean you and Christianity, you attempt to rally emotional support. Why dont you keep the discussion on a higher level of rhetoric? Why lower yourself to the "I am insulted by that question" mentality?

Seriously? Is that really all you got from my posts?

Listen, I'm no politician. I speak from the heart. If it sounds like rhetoric, it's probably because so many other Christians have spoken from the heart and their sentiments coincide.

 

[JoJo]

JoJo,

This is kind of funny, actually. We are talking past each other. When you posted your last response, I was wondering what you were talking about. So, I went back to read your previous message and realized I had misunderstood it. Then I was curious why. So I went further back in the exchange. When you were talking about the "questions" part of my summary, I assumed you were talking about the questions you quoted by merlow and myself earlier. Why? Well, my summary was not intended as two separate statements, but one complete idea -- a faith which does not doubt or question. The "question" element was not intended to standalone, but as part of the whole idea. This idea can be seen within my response to Aero_Hudson. Hence, I misunderstood you because you misunderstood me.

Thanks, minnesota.

I think what bothers me the most is that when I, as a Christian, try to relate my experiences or beliefs (to unbelievers, in particular), mostly all I get in return is a bunch of arguments against my beliefs. Why can't people, anyone, just accept someone's belief? If my beliefs aren't immoral or illegal or offensive to anyone (and I can honestly say that I never intend to offend), then why do I have to receive such criticism and critique? Why can't a believer's beliefs just be believed? lol

If a Christian claims to hear God's voice (and the "voice" hasn't told him to do something crazy, offensive, immoral or illegal) then why can't it just be accepted? If God told me, for instance, that my son would live from his cancer while he was in ICU (and he did live and was healed from his cancer) then why can't a person just accept my belief that God spoke to me and, not only that, proved His word to be true?

 

[Guest]

I think what bothers me the most is that when I, as a Christian, try to relate my experiences or beliefs (to unbelievers, in particular), mostly all I get in return is a bunch of arguments against my beliefs. Why can't people, anyone, just accept someone's belief? If my beliefs aren't immoral or illegal or offensive to anyone (and I can honestly say that I never intend to offend), then why do I have to receive such criticism and critique? Why can't a believer's beliefs just be believed? lol

We speak differently in the courtroom (i.e., more formal) than we do with our family and/or friends (i.e., less formal). The context provides a framework which provides rules to govern how we are expected to interact with others or behave. Allow me to provide an example.

The local courthouse has a sign hanging on the wall outside the doors. It expressly forbids, with threat of contempt of court, wearing baseball caps inside the courtroom. However, the local baseball team has no issues with your wearing a baseball cap. The different context provides a different framework or rules which govern how we behave.

So, what does this have to do with your questions? Well, most discussions on the Internet fall somewhere between a strict formal (i.e., well defined set of rules for interaction) and a wholly informal (i.e., no clearly defined rules) context. Thus, on Internet forums, you have a mixture of people who come with a mixture of different expectations. These expectations influence how they will interact with you, and how they expect you to interact with them.

With regard to CF.net, there is more formal expectation that one support and defend their perspectives within certain areas of the message board, and less formal expectations elsewhere. This, being the Apologetics and Theology forum, will naturally come with more formal expectations of providing "external" defenses because it is difficult, if not impossible, to "see" the truth or validity of something without having a reasonable presentation as to how we can see this. The General Discussion forum does not generally carry this expectation. (Well, that would depend greatly on the participants.)

With regard to non-believers, it is important to remember they do not share many of our beliefs and so they do not start from the same viewpoint that we do. Hence, this is why it's necessary to seek common ground from which we can discuss issues (i.e., a common starting point). (That's why I find the "atheism is the default position" notion to be absurd.) We cannot assume God exists, and then proceed from that assumption. (That's merely an example. I do not mean to imply all non-believers here are atheists.)

Of course, this is precisely why I think many people botch the notion of burden of proof. They think people must "absolutely" prove -- redundant, I know -- all claims all of the time. That's absurd. Burden of proof is a socially constructed and contextually defined concept.

Anyway, I am digressing. That's my understanding of the social interaction on the Internet in a nutshell, and that's why some people are unwilling to merely accept a believer's appeal to belief.

 

[JoJo]

Thank you very much, minnesota. :yes

Perhaps I will try to keep myself from participating in the "prove it" threads as I will never be able to prove anything spiritual.

 

[Fembot]

Thank you very much, minnesota. :yes

Perhaps I will try to keep myself from participating in the "prove it" threads as I will never be able to prove anything spiritual.

Life's too short to limit yourself JoJo. You aren't sinning, go ahead and let your voice be heard. You never know when He will decide to speak through you. Plus, the whole point in participating in a discussion is so you can learn how to better "prove your point." Just stay open minded enough to hear the other side.

 

[Orion]

So let me understand. It seems to be that "the voice" is really just a thought in your mind, and because it may agree with a book, it must be "God speaking to you". That is a HUGE step of faith, and still a blind one. For me, I would not, . . . and never could, . . . assume that what may pop into my brain is anything other than my own upbringing, and suroundings. And again, . . . . it IS your mind that "hears this voice", so you cannot know for sure that it wasn't JUST your mind, . . . no matter how sure you are that it "was God". It all hinges on "faith".

I seriously must wonder why "faith" is something that is "so holy". Does God "have faith"?? Does Jesus? Do the angels??? Are we, then, required that which is beyond divinity?

 

[Caroline H]

So let me understand. It seems to be that "the voice" is really just a thought in your mind, and because it may agree with a book, it must be "God speaking to you". That is a HUGE step of faith, and still a blind one. For me, I would not, . . . and never could, . . . assume that what may pop into my brain is anything other than my own upbringing, and suroundings. And again, . . . . it IS your mind that "hears this voice", so you cannot know for sure that it wasn't JUST your mind, . . . no matter how sure you are that it "was God". It all hinges on "faith".

Yes it is heard in your mind (for some), and if you don't understand that that is your problem. Be careful what you say to people who do have "faith", you are accountable for that.

I seriously must wonder why "faith" is something that is "so holy". Does God "have faith"?? Does Jesus? Do the angels??? Are we, then, required that which is beyond divinity?

Whaaat??

 

[Relic]

So let me understand. It seems to be that "the voice" is really just a thought in your mind, and because it may agree with a book, it must be "God speaking to you". That is a HUGE step of faith, and still a blind one. For me, I would not, . . . and never could, . . . assume that what may pop into my brain is anything other than my own upbringing, and suroundings. And again, . . . . it IS your mind that "hears this voice", so you cannot know for sure that it wasn't JUST your mind, . . . no matter how sure you are that it "was God". It all hinges on "faith".

I seriously must wonder why "faith" is something that is "so holy". Does God "have faith"?? Does Jesus? Do the angels??? Are we, then, required that which is beyond divinity?

I would not, . . . and never could, . . . assume that what may pop into my brain is anything other than my own upbringing, and suroundings.

WOW! :o Lucifer thought no differently! :bigfrown

You have been here for several years and still you write no differently than any atheist come to stir up the pot! :bigfrown And you write no differently than that of the one previous member that was here several years ago named Quark who did nothing but claim he was a "believeing" Christian but insisted on presenting disbelief and doubts about the things of GOD. :gah

When you stop thinking the bible is only a book written by man who made up the whole lot of it, and start seeing it as a book written out of the "INSPIRED" revelation TRUTH of HOLY SPIRIT, you just might stop having so little doubt and so little faith. Do you even know what faith is?


Why do you even ask such questions as to whether God has faith, Jesus, or the angels? :crazy Define what you think is Faith, Orion. And PLEASE! no one else post the answer! Let ORION DO IT!!!!! :bigfrown


.

 

[Guest]

Define what you think is Faith, Orion.

Faith is the acceptance of something as true.

 

[Orion]

There are many definitions. In a religion, though, it is believing in that which holds no proof. This faith comes from accepting the doctrines therein, preached on Sunday, and personal times of reading the holy texts. The danger of this is, MANY religions do the same thing.

My point about "faith and God" is that God is said to know all things, yet requires US to accept something that IS unknown and could not be proven. This would be something that would be foreign to God, having to believe in something by faith alone, yet judging based on it.