Can a Christian mistakenly believe they are interacting with God?

[xanthous]

This thread, and especially this post, and even more specifically, this statement:

God does interact with us, the believer, & giving us better understanding of His will. God works through us with supernatural powers. The non-believer explorer could not see the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but might begin seeing them on the way to believe."

makes me wonder how a Christian KNOWS that God is interacting with them, and that they're not just willing themselves to believe that, or just automatically branding whatever they're thinking/feeling/doing as a Gift of the Holy Spirit, for lack of an alternate explanation.

Can a Christian mistakenly believe they are interacting with God?

If yes, then:
How many Christians, out of all the Christians that are, mistakenly believe they are interacting with God, and how do we tell the difference (in cases where their beliefs/actions may affect us)?

Furthermore:
How can a Christian definitively tell the difference between warm'n'fuzzy and the real Gifts of the Holy Spirit?

This causes me a considerable amount of concern, given that God doesn't concretely show his love in a This Is God's Love(TM) See It Tonight at 11 kind of way, but yet people claim to be influenced in real concrete ways that can affect (and have affected) others.

I'd love to see some discussion on this.

[FinnAgain]

Sure. Assuming I was some evil demonic entity, the very first thing I'd do when communicating with mortals who would respond positively to me if they thought I was some benevolent creature, would be to disguise myself as something good. If we're assuming supernatural creatures exist, then why can't they disguise their presence? Any demon of sufficient power should, IMO at least, be able to make someone think that they're talking to God, or any of a number of gods.

And that's assuming that there's some sort of supernatural deception involved. What if, for example, there was a whole cosmos full of gods and goddesses? How would you know if the one you were in communication with and who was filling you with feelings of love and life and all that, was the one you wanted to be talking with?

As for a guess as to how many Christians were fooled in such a manner, assuming that various ghosts, demons, spirits, gods, goddesses, God and perhaps Goddess existed... I have no idea.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Someone who speaks to God is a saint. Someone who thinks God speaks to them, is a nutcase.

[xanthous]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

As for a guess as to how many Christians were fooled in such a manner, assuming that various ghosts, demons, spirits, gods, goddesses, God and perhaps Goddess existed... I have no idea.

I have to admit my reason for asking this particular question is that I'm sure the answer is "probably quite a few" and I guess that kind of concerns me, because if we can't prove a Gift of The Spirit, then how can we trust that people whose decisions are based on being "moved in such a way" are truly being moved that way and not in some kind of mistaken way? Christians' beliefs affect people all the time. I guess that's what I'm getting at.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by xanthous

This thread, and especially this post, and even more specifically, this statement:


makes me wonder how a Christian KNOWS that God is interacting with them, and that they're not just willing themselves to believe that, or just automatically branding whatever they're thinking/feeling/doing as a Gift of the Holy Spirit, for lack of an alternate explanation.

Can a Christian mistakenly believe they are interacting with God?

None of them KNOW they are interacting with God, gods or anything else. And as said, any powerful, and many not-so-powerful supernatural beings could convince a believer that they were interacting with God, assuming they existed.

Originally Posted by xanthous

How many Christians, out of all the Christians that are, mistakenly believe they are interacting with God, and how do we tell the difference (in cases where their beliefs/actions may affect us)?

Simple. Any Christian who says he's interacting with God is wrong, since there isn't any such critter.

Originally Posted by xanthous

How can a Christian definitively tell the difference between warm'n'fuzzy and the real Gifts of the Holy Spirit?

There are no such gifts, and no Holy Spirit, so again, it's easy.

Originally Posted by xanthous

I have to admit my reason for asking this particular question is that I'm sure the answer is "probably quite a few" and I guess that kind of concerns me, because if we can't prove a Gift of The Spirit, then how can we trust that people whose decisions are based on being "moved in such a way" are truly being moved that way and not in some kind of mistaken way? Christians' beliefs affect people all the time.

We can't. Even assuming such beings as gods and spirits existed, we have no way to tell one from the other, so it would make far more sense to either ignore them, or judge their statements on their own merits. I mean, if a voice claiming to be God tells you to kill your children to prove your faith, isn't it a good idea to ignore that voice, whether it's God, Asmodeus, a hallucination or an invisible alien ?

[Omegaman]

Originally Posted by xanthous

This causes me a considerable amount of concern, given that God doesn't concretely show his love in a This Is God's Love(TM) See It Tonight at 11 kind of way, but yet people claim to be influenced in real concrete ways that can affect (and have affected) others.

I think Jim Jones would be a good example of this. I doubt that people needed to wait all the way until he busted out the koolaid to figure out he really wasn't a man of God, do you?
From what I have have read of him his evil was very evident long before that but people are easily led a stray by following those who seek to serve other masters and themselves. By having a personal realtionship with God it is easier to see what is right and wrong and when in doubt to ask for guidance when one is not sure. Only a fool, or someone intent on evil, uses God as his justification for commiting evil. Wrong is wrong. You don't have to be at all religious to know the difference. But as someone who used to be almost a sociopath, my relationship with God has helped me to put others before myself, which is something I feel I must do gladly to have peace not only with God but myself. I'll let you know how it works out. (with myself)

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven

Someone who speaks to God is a saint. Someone who thinks God speaks to them, is a nutcase.

Tevye was a saint? Who knew?

[Guinastasia]

IIRC, correctly, we had a poster not too long ago who really had thought he had been spoken too directly to god. The episodes he described sounded like hallucinations from schizophrenia or something of that nature.

Does that count? Wasn't his name GuyinBlueJeans?

Ah, here we go.

[marshmallow]

Can a Muslim mistakenly believe they are interacting with Allah?

Can an ancient Roman mistakenly believe they were interacting with Jupiter?

Can a Neo-Pagan mistakenly believe they have melded with nature?

Can an Animist Hoodoo mistakenly believe they cast a magic spell which allowed them to be promoted?

[xanthous]

Originally Posted by marshmallow

Can a Muslim mistakenly believe they are interacting with Allah?

Can an ancient Roman mistakenly believe they were interacting with Jupiter?

Can a Neo-Pagan mistakenly believe they have melded with nature?

Can an Animist Hoodoo mistakenly believe they cast a magic spell which allowed them to be promoted?

Yes, you could replace Christian with any of those terms. I'm not being picky.

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by xanthous

Yes, you could replace Christian with any of those terms. I'm not being picky.

No, see, the "how come only you can be right?" argument is perhaps the best challenge to a Christian's claim to have a hotline to heaven. Christianity is among the 'exclusive' religions; it claims to have the only god in town, and so if it's correct, then believers in other distinctly different gods (such as Thor) must have been wrong in their belief that they were interacting with their god. Once a rational believer accepts that a people can believe they are interacting with a god and yet be mistaken about it, it opens up the possibility that they themselves are mistaken in their belief.

Or it would if they don't egomaniacally believe that everyone else can be wrong but they themselves are infallible. Every thiest I've mentioned this argument to in real life has taken the egomaniacal approach.

[Terrifel]

I guess you'd have to make a call based on what you already think you know about the nature of God. If you're being moved in a way that Christ wouldn't approve of, then you're likely to be off track-- which I suppose is the point of those "What Would Jesus Do?" bracelets. It's not an ideal solution, and I've heard people say that it's better to trust Jesus to guide you than to trust your own fallible judgement. But either way, you're still making a decision to trust your own judgement, because you can't know for sure if you're being decieved. So maybe the best course is to make decisions with that uncertainty in mind-- so that even if Jesus wasn't actually guiding you, it'd still be a decision he'd be okay with. If you rely on Jesus to guide you in everything, that's effectively abandoning free will, and inviting deception.

But maybe that's what is meant by a personal relationship with Jesus; you get to know him gradually, like falling in love, until you know him so well that you can't be decieved anymore. When you finally know him well enough that you can trust completely in his guidance, then he doesn't actually need to guide you at all.

I should probably mention that I'm an atheist, so I'm just blue-skying here. But I still think Jesus speaks pretty clearly through the Gospels in most regards. However, if I were you, I'd trust a message from Jesus before trusting a message from me. I have no idea what's going on.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by begbert2

Or it would if they don't egomaniacally believe that everyone else can be wrong but they themselves are infallible. Every thiest I've mentioned this argument to in real life has taken the egomaniacal approach.

Well, they are egomaniacs, or a good imitation. Since they aren't really getting messages from God, all they are really doing is listening to their own desires and labelling them God. That's pretty egomaniacal.

[Charger]

I'm a Christian. The typical answer you would get from us is that a Christian would not be mistaken because demonic forces avoid us, and would not dare try to deceive us because we are covered (by the blood of Christ).

My answer to whether or not a Christian can mistakenly believe they are interacting with God is "more often than not." You can usually tell which ones are wrong. They generally have some kind of self-centered message from God, or something that reinforces something misguided that they have already committed to believe. This often ends with someone testifying that God told them to commit a crime.

I am of the opinion that God's communication is through abilities. If you have a natural ability and desire to paint, for example, and can use that talent to spruce up the church lobby and raise funds for the homeless shelter. Maybe that's just people falling into place where they are needed, maybe not. But the voice-from-the-sky thing...I'm not really believing it.

[kitemaker_chuck]

I've always wondered if, with all the advances in technology, couldn't a person become convinced that they're interacting with God, while, unbeknownst to that person, they are really being hoaxed by some fantastic special effects from an all-too-human source?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by kitemaker_chuck

I've always wondered if, with all the advances in technology, couldn't a person become convinced that they're interacting with God, while, unbeknownst to that person, they are really being hoaxed by some fantastic special effects from an all-too-human source?

I don't see why not. It's the will to believe that matters more than the technology.

[Terrifel]

Originally Posted by kitemaker_chuck

I've always wondered if, with all the advances in technology, couldn't a person become convinced that they're interacting with God, while, unbeknownst to that person, they are really being hoaxed by some fantastic special effects from an all-too-human source?

We call this "Catholicism."

[Triskadecamus]

Can you mistakenly believe you are communicating with your kids?

There is nothing exceptional about folks making mistakes.

Christians do it. So does every non Christian soul in the world. It's the nature of being human.

Tris

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Triskadecamus

Can you mistakenly believe you are communicating with your kids?

As a rule, no. Because you can walk up to them, and you know, talk to them. And get replies. Quite different than God.

[Triskadecamus]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

As a rule, no. Because you can walk up to them, and you know, talk to them. And get replies. Quite different than God.

And of course your one line explanation covers the entire realm of "communicate", doesn't it?

I think I understand the problem.

Tris

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Triskadecamus

And of course your one line explanation covers the entire realm of "communicate", doesn't it?

No. Nor does it need to. There's no rational reason to believe that anyone, anywhere, has ever communicated with God in any way in either direction, even if he exists, which we also have no rational reason to believe. Comparing that to talking to children, which millions of people do so every day with an overwhelming evidence that they do so, is simply silly. The two things aren't remotely comparable.

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by xanthous

makes me wonder how a Christian KNOWS that God is interacting with them, and that they're not just willing themselves to believe that, or just automatically branding whatever they're thinking/feeling/doing as a Gift of the Holy Spirit, for lack of an alternate explanation.

Can a Christian mistakenly believe they are interacting with God?

If yes, then:
How many Christians, out of all the Christians that are, mistakenly believe they are interacting with God, and how do we tell the difference (in cases where their beliefs/actions may affect us)?

Furthermore:
How can a Christian definitively tell the difference between warm'n'fuzzy and the real Gifts of the Holy Spirit?

I have seen this question addressed in Christian writings/teachings. They say that, if a Christian feels that God has spoken to her or is directing her to do something, that she is correct or that she is mistaken are both very real possibilities. Reality checks include whether the "message" is consistent with what is generally known of God (e.g. through the Bible), consultation with fellow believers (especially those with more maturity and wisdom), and subjecting it to one's own reason and conscience.

[AdmiralCrunch]

Originally Posted by kitemaker_chuck

I've always wondered if, with all the advances in technology, couldn't a person become convinced that they're interacting with God, while, unbeknownst to that person, they are really being hoaxed by some fantastic special effects from an all-too-human source?

No technology necessary. Psilocybin Mushrooms have been doing the trick for years.

On the other hand, man has put God into a helmet.

The existence of hundreds of different denominations within Christianity testifies to the fact that most Christians think the line to God isn't very reliable for everyone.

[Chronos]

I guess you'd have to make a call based on what you already think you know about the nature of God. If you're being moved in a way that Christ wouldn't approve of, then you're likely to be off track-- which I suppose is the point of those "What Would Jesus Do?" bracelets.

Problem: What if you receive a communication from a supernatural source that tells you to kill your son? Because according to the Bible, God told Abraham to do exactly that. Now, God also told Abraham not to do it after all, before he actually stuck the knife in, but Abe still intended to proceed with the sacrifice. Was Abraham wrong to heed the Voice of God, telling him to do a very unGodly thing?

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Problem: What if you receive a communication from a supernatural source that tells you to kill your son? Because according to the Bible, God told Abraham to do exactly that. Now, God also told Abraham not to do it after all, before he actually stuck the knife in, but Abe still intended to proceed with the sacrifice. Was Abraham wrong to heed the Voice of God, telling him to do a very unGodly thing?

There is a definite problem when you combine the belief that God speaks to you with the belief that whatever God does is, by definition, good. Anything, without exception, can be excused when you combine these not-too-uncommon beliefs.

[Mangetout]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

I have seen this question addressed in Christian writings/teachings. They say that, if a Christian feels that God has spoken to her or is directing her to do something, that she is correct or that she is mistaken are both very real possibilities. Reality checks include whether the "message" is consistent with what is generally known of God (e.g. through the Bible), consultation with fellow believers (especially those with more maturity and wisdom), and subjecting it to one's own reason and conscience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral

Of course, it can and will be argued that reason should lead to the conclusion 'hey, this is bullshit', but still, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral stands as an example of why it might not be the case that Christians just go chasing, unthinkingly, impulsively, on what they believe to be a fresh revelation.

[Terrifel]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Problem: What if you receive a communication from a supernatural source that tells you to kill your son? Because according to the Bible, God told Abraham to do exactly that. Now, God also told Abraham not to do it after all, before he actually stuck the knife in, but Abe still intended to proceed with the sacrifice. Was Abraham wrong to heed the Voice of God, telling him to do a very unGodly thing?

It seems to me that this would only be a problem if you demand perfect fidelity between the lessons of the Torah and the lessons of the Gospels. Maybe Abraham was absolutely correct to kill his son, maybe not. But Jesus presented a new deal for believers, so what God asked Abraham to do becomes irrelevant. For a Christian, the question would then become "Would Jesus ask you to kill your own son?" Which I think results in a rather different answer.

Of course the history of practically every church founded in his name suggests that this is not an obvious choice, but there you go.

[Mijin]

It could be argued that were God to communicate with a person He would do so in such a way that the receiver could not doubt that they had communicated with God. I don't just mean a "sure feeling" but that the receiver could reason out the truth and be in no doubt about what had happened.

But then, that begs the question of why when God communicates with humans generally (whether through sacred books, his works, miracles or whatever), he doesn't do so unambiguously -- why is it that people can see such things and still doubt the message?

[monavis]

Originally Posted by Terrifel

I guess you'd have to make a call based on what you already think you know about the nature of God. If you're being moved in a way that Christ wouldn't approve of, then you're likely to be off track-- which I suppose is the point of those "What Would Jesus Do?" bracelets. It's not an ideal solution, and I've heard people say that it's better to trust Jesus to guide you than to trust your own fallible judgement. But either way, you're still making a decision to trust your own judgement, because you can't know for sure if you're being decieved. So maybe the best course is to make decisions with that uncertainty in mind-- so that even if Jesus wasn't actually guiding you, it'd still be a decision he'd be okay with. If you rely on Jesus to guide you in everything, that's effectively abandoning free will, and inviting deception.

But maybe that's what is meant by a personal relationship with Jesus; you get to know him gradually, like falling in love, until you know him so well that you can't be decieved anymore. When you finally know him well enough that you can trust completely in his guidance, then he doesn't actually need to guide you at all.

I should probably mention that I'm an atheist, so I'm just blue-skying here. But I still think Jesus speaks pretty clearly through the Gospels in most regards. However, if I were you, I'd trust a message from Jesus before trusting a message from me. I have no idea what's going on.

We can't say Jesus speaks to us through the Gospels as it was one of his followers who said he said it. Jesus didn't write anything except in the sand and who knows what that was?

Monavis

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by monavis

We can't say Jesus speaks to us through the Gospels as it was one of his followers who said he said it. Jesus didn't write anything except in the sand and who knows what that was?

Monavis

As far as I know, the Gospels aren't even from the mouths of the disciples that walked with him.

[monavis]

Originally Posted by Mijin

It could be argued that were God to communicate with a person He would do so in such a way that the receiver could not doubt that they had communicated with God. I don't just mean a "sure feeling" but that the receiver could reason out the truth and be in no doubt about what had happened.

But then, that begs the question of why when God communicates with humans generally (whether through sacred books, his works, miracles or whatever), he doesn't do so unambiguously -- why is it that people can see such things and still doubt the message?

Perhaps it is because what is attributed to God to one person is different to another and God tells different people different things. I would think God would not contradict Himself.

Monavis

[lekatt]

Originally Posted by xanthous

I have to admit my reason for asking this particular question is that I'm sure the answer is "probably quite a few" and I guess that kind of concerns me, because if we can't prove a Gift of The Spirit, then how can we trust that people whose decisions are based on being "moved in such a way" are truly being moved that way and not in some kind of mistaken way? Christians' beliefs affect people all the time. I guess that's what I'm getting at.

I think you can know if someone is truly in touch with God by what they do. Jesus said: "you will know them by their fruits." When Luke asked Yoda how to recognize the truth, Yoda replied "by its peace and quiet." If there is a question of whether something is of God, I look for the amount of caring and compassion in someone. It is hard to do wrong if you really care about others.

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Problem: What if you receive a communication from a supernatural source that tells you to kill your son? Because according to the Bible, God told Abraham to do exactly that. Now, God also told Abraham not to do it after all, before he actually stuck the knife in, but Abe still intended to proceed with the sacrifice. Was Abraham wrong to heed the Voice of God, telling him to do a very unGodly thing?

Abraham may well have been a special case, since at the time of that incident, Abraham had already had a long history of talking to God, doing (or not doing) what God directed him to do, even arguing with God. I don't think the Biblical story intends for us to have any doubt that it was God's voice that Abraham heard and recognized.

Also, this may have taken place before God made the general announcement that human sacrifice was not an acceptable way of getting on his good side.

Even so, there are different interpretations of this story, some of which do claim that Abraham was indeed wrong to heed the command to sacrifice his son so readily and unquestioningly.

[tagos]

Originally Posted by Terrifel

It seems to me that this would only be a problem if you demand perfect fidelity between the lessons of the Torah and the lessons of the Gospels. Maybe Abraham was absolutely correct to kill his son, maybe not.

And here we have the problem. The answer you were looking for was a big fat NO! Not maybe.

[Terrifel]

Originally Posted by monavis

We can't say Jesus speaks to us through the Gospels as it was one of his followers who said he said it. Jesus didn't write anything except in the sand and who knows what that was?

Even so, it seems to me that most of what is attributed to him presents a reasonably coherent picture, such that we can say with some confidence that Jesus would approve of caring for the sick and needy, and would not approve of holding grudges or setting someone else's legs on fire. Even an entirely fictional character like Sherlock Holmes can speak to us, if only to say, "I trust that no one imagines I would in any way endorse Conan Doyle's conclusions regarding fairies and the supernatural."

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

No. Nor does it need to. There's no rational reason to believe that anyone, anywhere, has ever communicated with God in any way in either direction, even if he exists, which we also have no rational reason to believe. Comparing that to talking to children, which millions of people do so every day with an overwhelming evidence that they do so, is simply silly. The two things aren't remotely comparable.

It is truly terrible when someone speaks dogmatically claiming to present the Absolute Truth on an issue he cannot possibly know the full answer to.

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by Terrifel

Even so, it seems to me that most of what is attributed to him presents a reasonably coherent picture, such that we can say with some confidence that Jesus would approve of caring for the sick and needy, and would not approve of holding grudges or setting someone else's legs on fire. Even an entirely fictional character like Sherlock Holmes can speak to us, if only to say, "I trust that no one imagines I would in any way endorse Conan Doyle's conclusions regarding fairies and the supernatural."

The coherent picture I take away from Jesus is "When you see somebody doing something that offends your sensibilities, you should immidiately physically assault them, knock over their tables and break their stuff; generally using force to make the world the way you want it."

What distinguishes Jesus from any fictional character? I mean, we know that his stories were written by people who didn't know him, and are therefore likely about as accurate as George Washington's wooden teeth, cherry tree, and money-throwing abilities. We tend to embellish our heroes, after all, and attribute to them things that sound cool, but which they didn't actually say or do.

If all we know about Jesus are the fictionalized accounts of men, what makes him a better source of insight than, say, Captain Planet? Or Jon-Luc Picard?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

It is truly terrible when someone speaks dogmatically claiming to present the Absolute Truth on an issue he cannot possibly know the full answer to.

"Absolute Truth" ? No. Is the evidence vastly, overwhelmingly on my side ? Yes. Does the other side have any evidence beyond the unsupported, and thus empty claims of believers ? No. Do the religious have a history of being wrong when they make claims that can be checked ? Yes.

[ralph124c]

Jesus warned about it ("wolves in sheep's clothing"). But it is a good question: when I see those TV "evangelists" in their $5000 suits, blathering away-I tells me that there are plenty of wolves out there.

[AskNott]

Billions of people every day, talk to God. They pray. The kneeling child says, "Bless mommy and daddy." Adults pray, and some even when they aren't in church. Some people make a living praying. Countless people beseech God to damn something or other when things go wrong. Does God answer these requests? How could you tell if the corner of the coffee table is damned?

Lots of people believe that God (or Jesus, or an angel) spoke to them. I know a few of them. They're sincere enough, I guess. I believe they are mistaken, sincerely mistaken.

The problems come when the illusory voice of God tells them to do something to affect other people's lives. That's when it can get very tricky, and even dangerous.

[Terrifel]

Originally Posted by begbert2

The coherent picture I take away from Jesus is "When you see somebody doing something that offends your sensibilities, you should immidiately physically assault them, knock over their tables and break their stuff; generally using force to make the world the way you want it."

That may be an obstructively selective reading of the man's overall career. By those standards, the coherent message of Huckleberry Finn is, "If you're a guy trying to pass yourself off as a girl, catch falling objects with your skirt rather than with your knees." Sure, it's good advice; but it's not the only thing the book has to say.

What distinguishes Jesus from any fictional character? I mean, we know that his stories were written by people who didn't know him, and are therefore likely about as accurate as George Washington's wooden teeth, cherry tree, and money-throwing abilities. We tend to embellish our heroes, after all, and attribute to them things that sound cool, but which they didn't actually say or do.

If all we know about Jesus are the fictionalized accounts of men, what makes him a better source of insight than, say, Captain Planet? Or Jon-Luc Picard?

Presumably if one is a Christian, one already believes that Jesus is a better source of insight. The OP believes that it is possible to receive spiritual guidance from Jesus directly, but that it is also possible to fool oneself in this regard. I'm suggesting that in such situations, the problem is perhaps not much different than how we judge the character of other people-- even fictional ones. We can say that Captain Picard wouldn't initiate a first contact by setting his phaser to kill-- if he did, that would mean that he was being mind-controlled or had been replaced by an evil doppleganger or whatever.

Even if Jesus is really a perfect source of insight, that still doesn't grant his followers any guarantee of certainty, so long as they themselves can be decieved. The only way around that obstacle would be a state of perfect self-knowledge, but then there'd be no guarantee that you aren't deceiving yourself about that either.

The only other option is to consult the accounts of Jesus in the Scriptures, since that's the only source of information we have about him. This would be true even if Jesus were just as fictional as George Washington.

[Resistance is Character-Formin]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Problem: What if you receive a communication from a supernatural source that tells you to kill your son? Because according to the Bible, God told Abraham to do exactly that. Now, God also told Abraham not to do it after all, before he actually stuck the knife in, but Abe still intended to proceed with the sacrifice. Was Abraham wrong to heed the Voice of God, telling him to do a very unGodly thing?

I like the interpretation in Dan Simmon's "Hyperion" for the Abraham story. A Jewish character (forgot his name) believed that God and Abraham were bluffing each other. God wanted Abraham to disobey, and Abraham had no intention of actually going through with it, but went as close as he could to see if God would change his mind. Abe outbluffed Him and God realized He had to be a lot more careful about faith.

[AskNott]

"God said, "Abraham, kill me a son."
Abe said, "Man, you must be puttin' me on."
God said, "Abe," Abe said, "What?"
God said, "You can do what you want, Abe, but,
Next time you see me comin', man, you better run."
Abe said, "Where you want this killin' done?"
God said, "Out on Highway 61."
--Bob Dylan

This story is central to the Jews, Christians, and the Muslims.

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by Charger

I'm a Christian. The typical answer you would get from us is that a Christian would not be mistaken because demonic forces avoid us, and would not dare try to deceive us because we are covered (by the blood of Christ).

Hah! Sucker! That would make you the greatest prize, not someone to avoid. Remember, the Devil even tempted Jesus, Himself. You, a mere human, believe you are protected from him by your piety? You are a toy for Satan to play with, and your misconceptions leave you open to all his mischief. Is he not called "the Prince of Lies?" Your faith does not protect you; it makes you a target.

I, an atheist but a lazy one, can barely be bothered to get up to piss. His lies can't tempt me because to sin by commission, versus omission, requires far too much effort, and a damnation for sins of omission is a dime a dozen. No sport, and if the book of Job is any indication, both Satan and Jehovah are sporting men.

You, on the other hand, are screwed.

Seriously, and letting my Closet Catholic out for a breather, of course Christians can mistakenly believe they are conversing with God. That is why the postmortem road to sainthood is normally as long and involved as it is. The first thing the committee needs to decide is, Is this person telling the truth, lying, or just crazy? Once that's done the rest is just paperwork.

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by Terrifel

That may be an obstructively selective reading of the man's overall career. By those standards, the coherent message of Huckleberry Finn is, "If you're a guy trying to pass yourself off as a girl, catch falling objects with your skirt rather than with your knees." Sure, it's good advice; but it's not the only thing the book has to say.

And my point is, you said that the bible "presents a reasonably coherent picture" of Jesus, so I provide an episode that is entirely inconsistent with his 'turn the other cheek' presentation. Looking back, you did say "most", but if you're allowed to ignore the parts you don't like, anyone and anything is reasonably consistent.

I'll agree that it seems that most people nowadays have a similar opinion of WWJD, but this opinion is just one of may possible selective reads from the source material.

Originally Posted by Terrifel

Presumably if one is a Christian, one already believes that Jesus is a better source of insight. The OP believes that it is possible to receive spiritual guidance from Jesus directly, but that it is also possible to fool oneself in this regard. I'm suggesting that in such situations, the problem is perhaps not much different than how we judge the character of other people-- even fictional ones. We can say that Captain Picard wouldn't initiate a first contact by setting his phaser to kill-- if he did, that would mean that he was being mind-controlled or had been replaced by an evil doppleganger or whatever.

Even if Jesus is really a perfect source of insight, that still doesn't grant his followers any guarantee of certainty, so long as they themselves can be decieved. The only way around that obstacle would be a state of perfect self-knowledge, but then there'd be no guarantee that you aren't deceiving yourself about that either.

The only other option is to consult the accounts of Jesus in the Scriptures, since that's the only source of information we have about him. This would be true even if Jesus were just as fictional as George Washington.

Of course Christians have decided that their interpretaion of the texts involving the Jesus character; as you noted this can be somewhat safely presumed, what with them being Christians and all. Which does sort of deflate my question as it can be sidestepped with "well, Christians don't think he's fictionalized".

And yes, the word is fictionalized, not fictional. George Washington was (presumably) not fictional, but several exaggerated and downright apocryphal stories have developed about him; I've even heard that one or two of them were circulating while he was still alive. And this was in a day of decent recordkeeping, and he was merely a president. The tales about Jesus were written many years after his death by people who never knew Jesus as a man, but rather percieved him as a godlike figure; one can safely assume that the writers would have played up his godliness and nobility to the hilt, and have included every myth and rumor that they'd ever heard about him, since they'd believe those myths and rumors to be true. Even if these scribes were perfectly honest and sincere in their work, I'd expect their writings to resemble the actual Jesus about as much as the tales about Santa Claus resemble the actual Saint Nicholas.

My question, if I had stated it better, should have been more along the lines of "Supposing you have a christain who recognizes that the bible was not typed in english personally by God's hands, that recognizes the non-literality of the tales of the Bible and Jesus; how does that Christian account for the fact that the tales about him are probably about as factual as the tales of Hercules? Do they still maintain a belief in the words that were put into his mouth? Or do they not even ackowledge the question?"

[Charger]

Originally Posted by Charger

I'm a Christian. The typical answer you would get from us is that a Christian would not be mistaken because demonic forces avoid us, and would not dare try to deceive us because we are covered (by the blood of Christ).

My answer to whether or not a Christian can mistakenly believe they are interacting with God is "more often than not."

Had to correct my emphasis.

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by begbert2

And my point is, you said that the bible "presents a reasonably coherent picture" of Jesus, so I provide an episode that is entirely inconsistent with his 'turn the other cheek' presentation. Looking back, you did say "most", but if you're allowed to ignore the parts you don't like, anyone and anything is reasonably consistent.

I think it's consistent. One characteristic of Jesus that comes through pretty clearly in the gospel accounts is that the one thing that got him really pissed off was when people (e.g. the religious establishment) did things to come between ordinary folks and God. The "moneychangers in the temple" incident is just one of several examples of this.

And yes, the word is fictionalized, not fictional. George Washington was (presumably) not fictional, but several exaggerated and downright apocryphal stories have developed about him; I've even heard that one or two of them were circulating while he was still alive. And this was in a day of decent recordkeeping, and he was merely a president. The tales about Jesus were written many years after his death by people who never knew Jesus as a man, but rather percieved him as a godlike figure; one can safely assume that the writers would have played up his godliness and nobility to the hilt, and have included every myth and rumor that they'd ever heard about him, since they'd believe those myths and rumors to be true. Even if these scribes were perfectly honest and sincere in their work, I'd expect their writings to resemble the actual Jesus about as much as the tales about Santa Claus resemble the actual Saint Nicholas.

"One can safely assume"? You can go right ahead and make an ass out of u and me, but I assume no such thing.

Unless you want to discount all biographical and historical works written by people who never knew their subjects personally, you have to at least concede the possibility that what we have is a fairly accurate account of Jesus's words and deeds.

And you seem to be exaggerating the distance between the gospel writers and Jesus. The gospels were probably written within the lifetime of some of Jesus's contemporaries. I direct you to the staff report Who wrote the Bible? (Part 4).

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

I think it's consistent. One characteristic of Jesus that comes through pretty clearly in the gospel accounts is that the one thing that got him really pissed off was when people (e.g. the religious establishment) did things to come between ordinary folks and God. The "moneychangers in the temple" incident is just one of several examples of this.

Okay, conceded. Jesus is scary and evil and unamerican (religous freedom? Freedom to have me BEAT YOU if you interfere with MY religion), but consistent.

(Okay, that's not really true; I actually still think that he contradicted his 'turn the other cheek' thing. But then again maybe he only meant that for other people. Regardless, I'm not interested in duelling over this.)

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

/"One can safely assume"? You can go right ahead and make an ass out of u and me, but I assume no such thing.

Unless you want to discount all biographical and historical works written by people who never knew their subjects personally, you have to at least concede the possibility that what we have is a fairly accurate account of Jesus's words and deeds.

And you seem to be exaggerating the distance between the gospel writers and Jesus. The gospels were probably written within the lifetime of some of Jesus's contemporaries. I direct you to the staff report Who wrote the Bible? (Part 4).

Given how much variance there is between the tales of Jesus's life that are based off of one another, I think it is proved that the biblical authors were perfectly willing to elaborate and alter their stories dramatically for the sake of pushing their own beliefs and agendas. Why do you assume that the tales that aren't in more than one place in the bible are less embellished and made-up than all the ones that are? It seems much more reasonable to think that they were consistently "creative" all the way through, especially since such "creativity" is exactly what I would expect of somebody writing about their hero who they think is a god. I mean, come on. These guys were not impartial recorders of history here.

I'm quite aware that at least some of the gospels were written only a generation or two after Jesus's death. I'm also aware that it only takes the time to walk from the stream to the bar for the fish stories to double in size. By a generation or two later, the fish that got away will have multiplied enough to feed a multitude.