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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
[/QUOTE]
I was stating my own moral conviction. It does not “come from” some authoritarian source. I don’t ascribe to any of those.