How do you know God's voice?

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Blaster Master

I'm willing to take a crack at this, but I'm not sure how representative my perspective may be and I don't really want to get into a long list of what I believe since I'm not really sure how much it adds. At least for me, my experiences with God are very seldom voice. My experiences tend to be much more intuitive or experiential. However, I also don't really believe in the idea of praying to ask for what I want or any of that sort of thing, rather, it's more in a sense for asking for understanding, clarity, and acceptance around what is going on that I don't have those aspects in. Thus, in that sense, I will pray about or meditate on one of those things and simply, suddenly, have an understanding. . . .

I don't know if it is in agreement with what you so, or disagreement, but I'm a very firm atheist...and I do much the same thing. I think about a problem in a particular way -- try to enter into a receptive state of mind -- and, sometimes, an answer pops into my head. FWIW, it's usually a pretty good answer. But...

As an atheist, I simply attribute it to the unconscious mind. I guess there are at least some believers who would attribute it to a spiritual communication from an outside entity. We're still stuck with the original question: "How do we know God's word?"

aldiboronti, in the whimsical dialogue, notes a kind of scientific test that could be applied; if either you or I, by seeking answers, obtained results that are objectively testable and which pretty much elude any other explanation -- detailed predictions of tomorrow's stock market would be nice! -- then "outside communication" would be hard to refute. If we only receive generally subjective advice -- "Tell your friends the truth; apologize to your uncle; looks like a good time to start a diet" -- then something more like the null hypothesis is still favored.

[jackdavinci]

To give a more personal response, I feel like it doesn't matter whether God really exists or not in this particular reality. It's academically easy to imagine what God would want - the best outcome for all beings. If you hear God's voice, it's fairly easy to determine if the message is in everyone's best interest. If it is, it doesn't matter if it's actually God or just your brain's extrapolation of him/her. If it isn't then it's easy enough to dismiss as a brain fart or Satan tempting you, whichever you prefer.

[monavis]

Belief is a strong point with people who believe it is the Voice of God, but it can only be belief,not fact. They are in reality taking what they believe is the word of God,learned from other humans. So in fact, their belief is bsed on a human definition of their idea of a God.

[Blaster Master]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

I don't know if it is in agreement with what you so, or disagreement, but I'm a very firm atheist...and I do much the same thing. I think about a problem in a particular way -- try to enter into a receptive state of mind -- and, sometimes, an answer pops into my head. FWIW, it's usually a pretty good answer. But...

As an atheist, I simply attribute it to the unconscious mind. I guess there are at least some believers who would attribute it to a spiritual communication from an outside entity. We're still stuck with the original question: "How do we know God's word?"

Actually, I think it's probably in pretty close agreement. I think that everyone has these sorts of experiences, it's just that those who believe are likely to attribute them to something related to that belief and those who don't will attribute it to something else. If God exists, then I don't think only those who have that faith construct are going to have a connection to him, and if he doesn't, then we're obviously not any different then either.

[AHunter3]

You cannot know. It is theologically and morally imperative to remain aware of your state of not knowing, to continue to question. Faith is where you proceed based on your best conviction, while remaining aware that you might be deluded deceived or just plain nuts.

[Nametag]

He sounds like Morgan Freeman?

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Nametag

He sounds like Morgan Freeman?

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by AHunter3

You cannot know. It is theologically and morally imperative to remain aware of your state of not knowing, to continue to question. Faith is where you proceed based on your best conviction, while remaining aware that you might be deluded deceived or just plain nuts.

Agreed. It always makes me nervous when I hear people rather casually talk about God led me to do X or say X. The spirit moved me to do or say X.

There is indeed a moral imperative to maintain an awareness that we are operating on our own judgement based on what we sincerely believe , at this moment. We may feel moved by something greater than ourselves, a connection to a higher or deeper power , a moment of clarity and insight, but the actions that we choose are our own and we have to be willing to face consequences and take responsibility rather than justify and divert by claiming divine direction.

Personally I think the process is similar to what Blaster Master and Trinopus described and find it very interesting that a believer and an atheist can find common ground in recognizing the similarities.
I'd say I am an agnostic , leaning toward some kind of belief, but recognizing that I don't know, and ultimately, in the day to day process of living and hopefully personal growth, it doesn't matter.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Mosier

If you are a believer, who thinks that God might literally talk to people, how would you know that the voice telling you to kill your son isn't God? There's a precedent that such a voice could indeed be God, right? So how do you distinguish schizophrenia from divine revelation?

I asked the question in a thread that was only tangentially related to this topic, and predictably got no answers due to it being off topic. I am genuinely curious about how people who believe in a literal voice of God would explain this apparent dilemma, though.

I agree with those who say you can't really know in an absolute sense.
I remember reading about Gandhi and he said he had an experience in prison in which he believed he heard the word of God. He was mediating on what to do about a certain issue and, according to him he received insight from an internal voice that he felt was not his own. He said he would never try to convince anyone else that he heard the voice of God but personally couldn't view it as any thing else.

I've had a few very profound experiences that have stayed with me, including one similar to Gandhi's. In thinking hard about certain situations and issues in my life there was internal voice that offered insight that was so strong it seemed like another voice , not simply my own thoughts.

In my experience people can be so eager to "hear" the voice of God, and be "led by the spirit" that they latch on to emotional experiences and thoughts.
When people say, the Lord led me to say or do X, I always wish they qualify with "I felt" to recognize their personal input also is a big factor. It should be clear to most thoughtful believers that we grow and our beliefs change and evolve as our understanding does. That is also true of groups and society as a whole. That being the case, some humility is called for , and plenty of self examination before we exclaim, "but God told me so"

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

. . . Gandhi . . . said he had an experience in prison in which he believed he heard the word of God. He was mediating on what to do about a certain issue and, according to him he received insight from an internal voice that he felt was not his own. . . .

I frequently have hypnagogic dreams/hallucinations, in which I have the compelling conviction that someone is right there in the room with me. (Once, right there in the bed with me!) Given this history of completely convincing hallucinations, I would have to be very dubious if I had an experience such as Gandhi's.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

I frequently have hypnagogic dreams/hallucinations, in which I have the compelling conviction that someone is right there in the room with me. (Once, right there in the bed with me!) Given this history of completely convincing hallucinations, I would have to be very dubious if I had an experience such as Gandhi's.

I think it's more than simply believing you heard an voice and casually deciding it must be God I'd better do what God says. At the time he was specifically looking for insight concerning a specific issue. I think it must be tempered with and judged by context as well as any progress thus far. If one believes God to be a God of love, truth and compassion then whether a certain experience was the voice of God must be judged in that context and as part of the overall process of seeking answers.

And still, the individual must understand the possibility for error and take responsibility for their own judgement call and actions.

[Legault]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

aldiboronti, in the whimsical dialogue, notes a kind of scientific test that could be applied; if either you or I, by seeking answers, obtained results that are objectively testable and which pretty much elude any other explanation -- detailed predictions of tomorrow's stock market would be nice! -- then "outside communication" would be hard to refute. If we only receive generally subjective advice -- "Tell your friends the truth; apologize to your uncle; looks like a good time to start a diet" -- then something more like the null hypothesis is still favored.

This isn't something that can be empirically supported. At best, you're simply testing whether or not voices in your head can make verifiable predictions about concrete events, i.e. you're reducing existential phenomenon to raw data in a makeshift experiment. If God were ever to communicate to you, it wouldn't be a matter of verification; it'd be a matter of self-exploration and faith. And yes, there would be colossal amounts of doubt involved. That's a part of the religious program, no?

Originally Posted by AHunter3

You cannot know. It is theologically and morally imperative to remain aware of your state of not knowing, to continue to question. Faith is where you proceed based on your best conviction, while remaining aware that you might be deluded deceived or just plain nuts.

I'd love to hear where this "moral imperative" comes from. Certainly not the Bible, since prophets and others are directly contacted by God all the time. Certainly not scientific culture, since last time I checked science wasn't in the business of morality. So where?

[Docta G]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

No, it just means that society at that time needed blood sacrifices to communicate with God, then he changed the way we do business with him..and if if he feels that the current way just isn't working out(like it has so many times in the past) he just change his mind again(like he has so many times in the past.) Maybe he bring back animal sacrifice, maybe ritualistic stoning, maybe genocide of male enemies and raping of female enemies, maybe drownings of millions-the Ways of God are as various as they are mysterious.

If he's perfect and changes in any way, he is no longer perfect. In other words, Perfect Guy didn't get it right the first time. In other words, he's not perfect, assuming there's even a Him.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Legault

This isn't something that can be empirically supported. At best, you're simply testing whether or not voices in your head can make verifiable predictions about concrete events . . .

Well, that would be supportive, or at very lest indicative. If the voice in my head says, "Miles Flyer to win in the first race at Del Mar," and that horse does, indeed, win, that would start to imply that the voice in my head is not merely my imagination or my unconscious.

. . . since last time I checked science wasn't in the business of morality . . .

Hm? Sure it is. Morality is an issue that actually can be addressed and assessed scientifically. Sociologists can look at two otherwise similar groups of people, one who has one kind of moral code, the other with another, and observe differences in the groups. There are lots of things science could do.

In fact, science goes further, and analyzes the morality of its own procedures. Scientists are right in the heart of the debate over animal-cruelty in lab experiments. It isn't just a philosophical or cultural question, but a scientific one also.

[Anaamika]

On the JC hijack, didn't JC say something like "Think not that I come to overthrow the law, I come to uphold it"?

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Docta G

If he's perfect and changes in any way, he is no longer perfect. In other words, Perfect Guy didn't get it right the first time. In other words, he's not perfect, assuming there's even a Him.

Which could mean that while a perfect God doesn't change, our understanding of him , our relationship with him , and creation , does.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by cosmosdan

Which could mean that while a perfect God doesn't change, our understanding of him , our relationship with him , and creation , does.

Mr. Perfect isn't very good at getting his point across, is he?
Like I've always said: I don't know what it would take for me to believe, but if this deity was perfect, he would. The fact that this hasn't happened yet is not then my fault at all.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Mr. Perfect isn't very good at getting his point across, is he?
Like I've always said: I don't know what it would take for me to believe, but if this deity was perfect, he would. The fact that this hasn't happened yet is not then my fault at all.

How can we tell? It seems to me that the message itself is fairly clear but living and applying it is the process we are still working on. Maybe that process, that work, is the point. I don't know. personally , as a spiritually leaning agnostic I'm convinced God {if a creator exists} doesn't need or want my worship or obedience in any sort of anger, jealousy, or ego sense. I think the eastern religions that encourage us to wake up, to work at becoming more aware are on the right track.
And son of a gun, that's something that doesn't even require God belief to do. I found it interesting in another thread that an atheist and a believer described very similar processes of personal growth and looking inward.

I'm only saying that we can look at human history and see that process of growth. equality, human rights , learning all to slowly that we are ultimately the same tribe rather than different ones. There is still so much left to discover that I entertain the possibility of something after this mortal life , and a creator, a universal plan, a path, that we have barely begun to grasp. The relief for me was realizing I don't have to know to do my best today , and again tomorrow. The question of what may or may not be will be answered at the appropriate time.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Mr. Perfect isn't very good at getting his point across, is he?
Like I've always said: I don't know what it would take for me to believe, but if this deity was perfect, he would. The fact that this hasn't happened yet is not then my fault at all.

That doesn't follow. Just because one person's action or inaction would have prevented something doesn't mean that other people can't also be at fault. Just because Paterno could have stopped Sandusky doesn't make it not Sandusky's fault for raping kids.

You can argue that God is partly at fault, but not that you are not at fault. Well, at least, not from this. You'd have to argue you tried to believe, but couldn't.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by BigT

That doesn't follow. Just because one person's action or inaction would have prevented something doesn't mean that other people can't also be at fault. Just because Paterno could have stopped Sandusky doesn't make it not Sandusky's fault for raping kids.

You can argue that God is partly at fault, but not that you are not at fault. Well, at least, not from this. You'd have to argue you tried to believe, but couldn't.

Try to believe? Either I am convinced enough to believe, or I'm not. If an outside source convinces me, then all is well and good, but trying to convince myself that something is real without that necessary outside evidentiary push smacks of self deception. I cannot believe before I am convinced. What kind of evidence would take for you to believe that the Cubs won the World Series in 1988? Absent that evidence, would just trying harder to believe do the job?

[AHunter3]

Originally Posted by Legault

I'd love to hear where this "moral imperative" comes from. Certainly not the Bible, since prophets and others are directly contacted by God all the time. Certainly not scientific culture, since last time I checked science wasn't in the business of morality. So where?

I was stating my own moral conviction. It does not "come from" some authoritarian source. I don't ascribe to any of those.