Presuming the christian god and the relative accuracy of the bible, we know what’s in the text - or rather, what we end up deciding the relvent bits of the text are. Which can easily include that God loves us, since it’s right there in the text. (One could also decide that God is a homogenous mass composed of love particles - there’s a fair bit of wiggle room there.)
For me it was knowing that my way was not working and that God’s way must be better, as it was the only one left that I could try. I took God’s way sight unseen. In prayer I said something like, 'Lord teach me your ways, whatever it takes (and that was a lot BTW), if you want to lock me up in a monastery copying scriptures by hand for the rest of my life that is far better then anything I could come up with on my own."
After that prayer, about a hour later, was the very first time I heard God and Knew it was Him, it was very clear. He said “Restore” & “I want to free you”
As I posted above God actually spoke in a way that I could directly understand _ God came down to my level, He wanted to make Himself known, and to show what He was going to do, instead of teaching me His way that He really wanted to speak. It was like hugging a newborn instead of saying I Love you, which would be not understandable at that age.
Further, without anthropomorphizing, how would be even know how such a mind defines “love”?
You must be a lot older than me, because there are a hundred billion trillion ways that I haven’t tried yet - it’s going to take me a very long time to try out all the possibilities until there’s just one way remaining. If my current way falls through, next on the list is “pretend everything is edible”, followed by “marxism” followed by “say everything in pig latin.”
Was it definitely a male voice? Was it real deep, or more of a tenor? How old did he sound?
Have you tried my way? It seems pretty good so far for me. 
Here’s a couple of questions, then. Was what you got what you expected? That is to say, what you had in mind before you believed, what you thought God was about, was that the same as what you later discovered about God? And if it was not the same, then your plea for aid was technically an inaccurate one; on that basis, why would God select to answer your plea in such a manner and not one that I might make, now, given that my idea will probably also be incorrect?
How inaccurate would you say a plea could be before God would not respond to it?
Everytime you try your choices will be more and more limited, see the prodigal son.
Actually it was like a voice, not that you heard through the air, but like as if you just heard it through the air.
Yes it was male if I had to place it, not real deep, though I would not place the voice in the tenor range, age I’d place somewhere between a adult to the ancient of days. It was really amazing.
Actually I can go back and try prior methods again, so I’ll never run out of options. (See the prodigal son - he got to try being at home again a second time.)
As a complete aside, the prodigal son story is awesome, becuase it completely invalidates the idea that I will be held accountable for my actions. 
yes, and it will for a while.
No I expected a mean God, and to be His slave. I found absolute Love and He adopted me as His son.
No totally different
It’s not the accuracy, but the pleading for mercy of the heart. God looks at the heart, and my plea was for deliverance from my ways* to whatever His way was - even if I didn’t understand His ways.
- this would be a form of repentance, admission that my all my ways are and have been wrong.
That seems odd. I’m pretty sure I hadn’t talked to you before you became a believer. How is it that you know (and knew) what my way was?
Out of interest, what led you to your prior conclusion? Why did you think you’d be under the thumb of a tyrant? And (though this is very much a personal question, and so you’re quite fine in telling me i’m out of line) what about your life 'til then was so terrible that slavery under an omnipotent taskmaster would be better than it?
Ah, so the aim of the plea doesn’t matter (or at least not so much) as making an honest, open plea with true desire to be enlightened? The intent is the important part?
And the difference is…
I take it you have tapes of how Socrates et al sounded? If so, would you upload them somewhere?
I’m…sure it was, just like the rest of your miracle-filled life. sigh
I think we can just dispense with this incredible derailment, and continue with the adult conversation, already in progress.
RedFury asked how we can know how God even defines love-any takers(amongst those of you who don’t have Him on quickdial, that is)?
If he’s omnipotent, then everything that happens to us is his will (wether he’s doing it or merely allowing it) and is also not pirsuant to some other goal, so we can directly infer that everything that happens to us is, in his mind, a direct expression of love. This might lead some to believe that he’s rather warped. Alternately it might lead you to believe he cares about some part of us (like an invulnerable spirit, or our kidneys) that isn’t bothered by the sometimes harrowing experiences the rest of us experience. It would be entirely correct to see this as not loving us (but instead loving just that part), though, so it might not satisfy the question.
Alternatively if god is not omnipotent, we have no direct way of telling what’s his will and what he’s just powerless over, so that leaves us with no direct way of knowing what he means by the term.
In either case, one might find answers in a text - I don’t myself know if any are there, but I have no doubt that a creative enough person could find them regardless.
Again, debatable. For he might know what and how we think of love (and that’s not even a universal amongst humans) but that does not necessarily translate into his definition.
Your whole response is premised on the same flaw/limitation priorly mentioned: anthropomorphism.
My response is much simpler: based on what’s given (a mind we, by definition, can’t comprehend), there is no way of knowing.
What? No. This is the exact opposite of what I said - which is that by the fact that (omnipotent) God allows babies to be eaten by timberwolves, or whatever, that proves that that event is not inconsistent with what God thinks of as his love for us. This has precisely nothing to do with what we think of as love; it’s a recognition of the fact that with an omnipotent god, thing as he wants them to be. Not how we do.
The closest this gets to anthropomorphism is that it assumes that love means anything to god, and that it’s something roughly akin to an emotion. (If it’s a particle that he’s homogenously composed of, that’s different of course.)
Except that we do know, presuming he’s omnipotent, as a logical side effect of omnipotence. His omnipotence itself exposes his mind to us, at least to the degree of telling us what he wants, because omnipotence is all about having things as you want them.
OK, fair enough, my bad. But then you’ve just diluted the human concept of “love” to mean anything and everything that happens on earth.
Not sure how that helps in practical terms.
Indeed. For I see nothing in your prior description of complete randomness – as is, granted – that would include any sort of emotion as we know them
Could God think of a time when he was not omnipotent?
I suppose I was somewhat extravagant in my denial of understanding. I am not entirely in the position of the tabula rasa infant with respect to knowing God. I think that the far more common mistake made by men is to think that every revelation on the nature of God is understanding of the mind of God. Perhaps that blinding flash of comprehension seems that way, because of the prior darkness. To me, the dim twilight of my perceptions shine more brightly than all the human knowledge I have ever gained. But, in the humiliations that my pride have brought to me, I have found another wisdom. I cannot reveal God Himself. I can only bear witness to my experience. And most of what I can do in that regard is by actions, not words.
I have faith in the Love of God because He has sent His Son, Jesus, who is Christ, to me. He gave me the message that He loves me. He did not give me a message for you. I have read the scriptures, both those of current canon, and others. I believe that if you open your heart to the stories of these men who sought to know God, and make of your heart a dwelling place for the Lord, He will come to you as well.
If that is not something you can do, I can only tell you that He wants me to love you, and that your sin is before Him, and I have no authority over it.
To the utter skeptic, I can only say, love each soul you meet as if it were the same loving god of all that I have described. Whether I am right or wrong, still, you will find that love itself is good, and you will grow in spirit. Be good. It is a good idea.
Tris
According to the psalmist,(Psalm 81 or 82 depending on what Bible you use) men are Gods (Jesus backed this up) so everyone is God and a human is God. So that solves a lot of why people think God is telling them something? If that is so, it is the inner being in each person thinking and doing what God is thinking, doing, or saying! Each person’s idea of what God says or does vary according to their own life experiences, culture of where they were born, what they were taught or read.
The Golden rule of the Buddah," Do Unto others as you would have done unto you" is a good lesson.
Before that can be answered, one must first show proof of the existence of a god of any kind. Until that happens, you might as well make that statement about your favorite cartoon character.