How god communicates with us.

highlydebased

Maybe someone could....advise me here

I have always been of the belief that god communicates with us via our thoughts. I believe it as, perhaps I pray then I get something in my head related to what I prayed about, I often say "Why did'nt I think of that before!". I dont think its coincidental, but in fact god communicating with me......

.........anyone wish to offer their view?

BrianCalgary

Neon-Circles wrote:

Maybe someone could....advise me here

I have always been of the belief that god communicates with us via our thoughts. I believe it as, perhaps I pray then I get something in my head related to what I prayed about, I often say "Why did'nt I think of that before!". I dont think its coincidental, but in fact god communicating with me......

.........anyone wish to offer their view?

I'm with you on that one. It is kind of like divine inspiration.

Although others like my wife hear an audible voice.

Sapien

How does she know it's God speaking to her?

BrianCalgary

Sapien wrote:

How does she know it's God speaking to her?

There is verse in the Bible where Jesus says that His sheep will recognize His voice.

Sheep do recognize their masters voice, just as Christians recognize their masters voice.

You can also test the message with scripture. If the voice tells you to divorce your wife and marry someone else, it isn't God telling you to do it as that instruction isn't consistent with scripture.

Tzetze

Peter Sutcliffe claimed that God instructed him to carry out his handy work via direct messages inside his head.

Bush also claims that he was instructed by God to invade Iraq.

MooseJam

Why doesn't God talk to people, proper talking as in have a full blown conversation, if he loves us so much that would be the least he can do and not the wishy washyness of divine inspiration and the like.

kelly1

Neon-Circles wrote:

Maybe someone could....advise me here

I have always been of the belief that god communicates with us via our thoughts. I believe it as, perhaps I pray then I get something in my head related to what I prayed about, I often say "Why did'nt I think of that before!". I dont think its coincidental, but in fact god communicating with me......

.........anyone wish to offer their view?

God primarily communicates with us via His Word in Holy Scripture especially when we mediatate on it.

The words of Jesus aren't ordinary words. They are very powerful.

John 15:7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done unto you.

Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

God bless,
Noel.

philologos

do you not believe in prophesying, and other forms of communication as opposed to just the words of truth. Just wondering some churches put a lot of weight in those as well as the Scripture. Would be interesting to see where an RC stands on it.

BrianCalgary

Tzetze wrote:

Peter Sutcliffe claimed that God instructed him to carry out his handy work via direct messages inside his head.

Bush also claims that he was instructed by God to invade Iraq.

I have no idea who Peter Sutcliffe is and can you get a quote from George Bush?

Tzetze

BrianCalgary wrote:

I have no idea who Peter Sutcliffe is and can you get a quote from George Bush?

With pleasure, Brian.

Bush has a private hotline to God
Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."

Edit: More here.

Peter Sutcliffe aka The Yorkshire Ripper
"A former mortuary worker, Sutcliffe apparently spoke with God frequently. The good Lord ordered him to go out and hunt prostitutes and, as a true Christian, he did as he was told. Luckily, he also enjoyed the job and would cum in his pants as he hammered and stabbed his victims to death."

tuxy

Yes but if it's bad voices it's the devil or schizophrenia but any good voices in your head are the word of god.

Mr. Presentable

BrianCalgary wrote:

There is verse in the Bible where Jesus says that His sheep will recognize His voice.

Sheep do recognize their masters voice, just as Christians recognize their masters voice.

You can also test the message with scripture. If the voice tells you to divorce your wife and marry someone else, it isn't God telling you to do it as that instruction isn't consistent with scripture.

Sheep being the key word here. Look, what happens is simple enough: You pray, clearing your mind of superfluous thought, and start to think clearly. Thus "inspiration". Let's call it meditation, or chanting a mantra. Let's not call it "god". That'd be to diminish his work in creating us :rolleyes:

BrianCalgary

tuxy wrote:

Yes but if it's bad voices it's the devil or schizophrenia but any good voices in your head are the word of god.

Pretty well. When you look at the Peter Sutcliffe quote (thanks BTW Tzetze) the killing of prostitutes goes directly aginst what Jesus taught. See the account of the boys who were going to stone the adulterer and Christs reaction to that.

Jesus teaching was and example set was love and compassion for the sinner, not persecution of.

So Peter Sutcliffe may think it ws God, but it certainly wasn't and he ws deceived.

As for George Bush, history will tell us whether or not the war in the Middle East was worth the trouble.

We won't get into that discussion here. Save it for the politics board or somewhere else.:)

BrianCalgary

nipplenuts wrote:

Sheep being the key word here. Look, what happens is simple enough: You pray, clearing your mind of superfluous thought, and start to think clearly. Thus "inspiration". Let's call it meditation, or chanting a mantra. Let's not call it "god". That'd be to diminish his work in creating us :rolleyes:

Not quite. When praying you do not clear your head. You have a conversation with God. You fill your mind with His word.:eek: that some would even think that prayer is a mind emptier.

Tzetze

BrianCalgary wrote:

So Peter Sutcliffe may think it ws God, but it certainly wasn't and he ws deceived.

How can you say, with any certainty, that anyone experiencing communication with God is not similarly deceived?

Yet you can say that Abraham was acting under God's will when he came within an inch of butchering his son.

If your God does indeed move in mysterious ways, as you Christians maintain, then you cannot say with any certainty that Sutcliffe was deceived.

Mr. Presentable

BrianCalgary wrote:

Jesus teaching was and example set was love and compassion

Only, Brian dear, if you are selective of his "teachings".

I can give, as you will know, a hundred examples of this kind of thing.

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for the christian ethic, I think it's great, but the blind following of a prophet smacks of ignorance.

But to get back to the OP - see my previous post. In the olden days, you know, god took the form of a bush or animal to talk to people. Now he doesn't bother.

Tzetze

BrianCalgary wrote:

As for George Bush, history will tell us whether or not the war in the Middle East was worth the trouble.

I would reword it this way (and retain the context).

As for George Bush, history will tell us whether or not the killing of tens of thousands (if not 100,000) innocents was worth the oil.

However, if Bush maintains that he acted under God's instructions, then it must be worth it?

BrianCalgary

nipplenuts wrote:

Only, Brian dear, if you are selective of his "teachings".

I can give, as you will know, a hundred examples of this kind of thing.

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for the christian ethic, I think it's great, but the blind following of a prophet smacks of ignorance.

But to get back to the OP - see my previous post. In the olden days, you know, god took the form of a bush or animal to talk to people. Now he doesn't bother.

A wee bit of context.
Matthew

32"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[e]

37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

40"He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. 41Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward. 42And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward."


What Christ is saying here is that because of him there would be divisions. I have friends whose families have disowned them because they have become followers of Christ.

A sword is used to split, as a belief in Christ can cause splits.

i agree a blind following does bring about ignorance. Hence th eneed to read and study Hid words and His life and His example and model your own life on His.

It gets back to: love your neighbour as yourself.

If I was down and out and needed a lift up, I would appreciate anyone giving the hand, As I therefore do to others.

Thanks:)

(didn't know I was your 'dear':o )

Red Hand

I think I mentioned this before in another thread. If you believe that God can talk to you, how do you know it's him and not, say, a Djin/Demon/Schizophrenia?

When Abraham was told by God to kill his flesh and blood, why did he not say, "This is clearly not the God I know" and refuse to do it? For all he knew, the "test" he was put under mght have been "not" to kill his son, for it went against the morality that came from God.

tuxy

God constantly changes morality to fit in with the times. He lets the pope know of these changes. The pope then tells the masses.

kelly1

tuxy wrote:

God constantly changes morality to fit in with the times. He lets the pope know of these changes. The pope then tells the masses.

Tuxy, this is an adult discussion.

kelly1

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

I think I mentioned this before in another thread. If you believe that God can talk to you, how do you know it's him and not, say, a Djin/Demon/Schizophrenia?

Jeremiah, the answer is here:

1 John4:6 We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

There are a lot of people around here who won't agree with this but a locution
can only be from God if the message is in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church as the above passage indicates.

The area of private locution is very risky and needs spiritual direction from a competent director. Locution are not something that should be sought as it's very easy to be deceived.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils.

God bless,
Noel

Run_to_da_hills

kelly1 wrote:

God primarily communicates with us via His Word in Holy Scripture especially when we mediatate on it.

The words of Jesus aren't ordinary words. They are very powerful.

John 15:7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done unto you.

Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

God bless,
Noel.

Well said Noel.

PDN

Tzetze wrote:

With pleasure, Brian.

Bush has a private hotline to God
Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."

Edit: More here.

You missed out the fact that Bush's spokesman denied that this was said. You also omitted to mention that Shaath said he didn't take Bush's words literally.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4320586.stm

robindch

PDN wrote:

You missed out the fact that Bush's spokesman denied that this was said. You also omitted to mention that Shaath said he didn't take Bush's words literally.

Bush's spokesmen are not the most reliable transporters of truth, and I did read a few articles in which Shaath claimed that he was leant upon to retract the comments. Regardless of that, I think PDN's objection is reasonable, since Bush didn't announce this in public and the reports of it are are quite controversial.

Bush is on undisputed record as saying that he wasn't going to listen to his biological father when deciding about whether to invade Iraq, but would instead appeal to a "higher father" instead. Full article here.

CBS wrote:

“I asked the president about this. And President Bush said, ‘Well, no,’ and then he got defensive about it,” says Woodward. “Then he said something that really struck me. He said of his father, ‘He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength.’ And then he said, ‘There's a higher Father that I appeal to.’"

Bush hasn't denied that his happened, and has made other comments where he had an opportunity to reject the allegation, but didn't (see here).

I don't believe that there is any real doubt that Bush's religious beliefs were a principal causal factor in his decision to invade Iraq and set in train a series of events that has resulted in the deaths of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people.

BrianCalgary

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

I think I mentioned this before in another thread. If you believe that God can talk to you, how do you know it's him and not, say, a Djin/Demon/Schizophrenia?

When Abraham was told by God to kill his flesh and blood, why did he not say, "This is clearly not the God I know" and refuse to do it? For all he knew, the "test" he was put under mght have been "not" to kill his son, for it went against the morality that came from God.

Who knos what was going through the mind of Abraham. when I read that ccount I think of how I would feel taking my own son up that hill to do that which God asked. It is a pretty powerful emotion.

It brings into focus a little more then the sacrifice that not only Christ made, but the pain that the Father must have been going through.

It is quite an illustration of the love that God has for us.

PDN

robindch wrote:

Bush's spokesmen are not the most reliable transporters of truth, and I did read a few articles in which Shaath claimed that he was leant upon to retract the comments. Regardless of that, I think PDN's objection is reasonable, since Bush didn't announce this in public and the reports of it are are quite controversial.

Bush is on undisputed record as saying that he wasn't going to listen to his biological father when deciding about whether to invade Iraq, but would instead appeal to a "higher father" instead. Full article here.Bush hasn't denied that his happened, and has made other comments where he had an opportunity to reject the allegation, but didn't (see here).

I don't believe that there is any real doubt that Bush's religious beliefs were a principal causal factor in his decision to invade Iraq and set in train a series of events that has resulted in the deaths of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people.

I think the primary reason for invading Iraq was the shame and anger felt by Republicans that Bush senior never "finished the job" against Saddam Hussein. Put Bush junior in the hot-seat and things were bound to play out the way they did.

Yes, Bush says he prayed about his decision. However, as I well know, sometimes we pray about things and then still do what we want to do.

PDN

robindch wrote:

Bush's spokesmen are not the most reliable transporters of truth, and I did read a few articles in which Shaath claimed that he was leant upon to retract the comments. Regardless of that, I think PDN's objection is reasonable, since Bush didn't announce this in public and the reports of it are are quite controversial.

Do we take the word of a White House official or of a member of the PLO? Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place!

Incidentally, Mahmoud Abbas, a supposed witness, said that Shaath's story was "completely false" - but then he may have been leaned on too.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/abbas-denies-bushs-mission-from-god-remark/2005/10/08/1128563027485.html

MooseJam

kelly1 wrote:

There are a lot of people around here who won't agree with this but a locution
can only be from God if the message is in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church as the above passage indicates.

God bless,
Noel

What if it is in accordance with the teachings of the church of Ireland

PDN

kelly1 wrote:

There are a lot of people around here who won't agree with this but a locution can only be from God if the message is in accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church as the above passage indicates.

I think you missed the relevant passage from your post. Could you post it please?
Thanks

kelly1

PDN wrote:

I think you missed the relevant passage from your post. Could you post it please?
Thanks

1 John 4:6 We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

i.e. is a voice tells you something that is contrary to what the Church teaches, there's no way it can be from God.

PDN

kelly1 wrote:

1 John 4:6 We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

i.e. is a voice tells you something that is contrary to what the Church teaches, there's no way it can be from God.

OK, that doesn't mention anything about the Catholic Church.

kmick

kelly1 wrote:

Tuxy, this is an adult discussion.

well to be honest I knda agree with Tuxy. For example condoms were invented recently. The pope is gods representative on earth and is bestowed with Papal Infallibility. He instructs Christians on earth not to use condoms. Therefore even though it was said flippantly in essence Tuxy is correct.

As for God speaking to oneself - this is very dangerous water. I would assume most people believe God does not speak directly to us.

robindch

PDN wrote:

I think the primary reason for invading Iraq was the shame and anger felt by Republicans that Bush senior never "finished the job" against Saddam Hussein.

Maybe, but I think it's more likely that the invasion was a simple resource-grab -- Bush does come from Texas, the oil-state, and many of Bush's friends (to whom he is notoriously loyal) were involved in the redecoration of Iraq and profited enormously from it.

However, it seems pretty clear that the invasion was legitimized, at least in the little-used courtroom of Bush's conscience, by recourse to christian dogma and his weird appeals to an invisible "higher father" who apparently forgot to tell him what a disaster it would turn out to be.

PDN

kmick wrote:

well to be honest I knda agree with Tuxy. For example condoms were invented recently. The pope is gods representative on earth and is bestowed with Papal Infallibility. He instructs Christians on earth not to use condoms. Therefore even though it was said flippantly in essence Tuxy is correct.

As for God speaking to oneself - this is very dangerous water. I would assume most people believe God does not speak directly to us.

I am not a Catholic, and I see nothing wrong in the use of condoms, but in the interests of accuracy I should point out that the Egyptians were using condoms 3000 years ago.

kelly1

PDN wrote:

1 John4:6 We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

OK, that doesn't mention anything about the Catholic Church.

OK, forget about the name catholic which wasn't used until 107 AD, I think. The "We" in the verse refers to the Apostles/Church.

In other words messages that contradict the teaching of the Church cannot possibly be from God because the truth was revealed to the Apostles.

philologos

kelly1 wrote:

OK, forget about the name catholic which wasn't used until 107 AD, I think. The "We" in the verse refers to the Apostles/Church.

In other words messages that contradict the teaching of the Church cannot possibly be from God because the truth was revealed to the Apostles.

Yes it refers to the Christian church as a whole.

tuxy

robindch wrote:

I don't believe that there is any real doubt that Bush's religious beliefs were a principal causal factor in his decision to invade Iraq and set in train a series of events that has resulted in the deaths of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people.

I just wonder would anyone be willing to hazard a guess as to how a so called Christian like Bush, would convince himself and many other Christians, that under certain circumstances breaking the 6th commandment thousands or even hundreds of thousands of times is acceptable?

PDN

tuxy wrote:

I just wonder would anyone be willing to hazard a guess as to how a so called Christian like Bush, would convince himself and many other Christians, that under certain circumstances breaking the 6th commandment thousands or even hundreds of thousands of times is acceptable?

It's called the just war theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

Not something I subscribe to myself, but there you go.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

It's called the just war theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

Not something I subscribe to myself, but there you go.

I think people are just afraid of Bush irrespective of his faith. If he came out tomorrow and said he had changed his mind and he was an atheist I would fear him just as much.
He just seems to be incapable of thinking through any complicated geopolitical issue.
Jimmy Carter was a born again Christian and nobody seem to be as worried about him. So I don't think Bush's faith as much to do with it.

robindch

kelly1 wrote:

I just wonder would anyone be willing to hazard a guess as to how a so called Christian like Bush, would convince himself and many other Christians, that under certain circumstances breaking the 6th commandment thousands or even hundreds of thousands of times is acceptable?

Firstly, the media in the USA don't really report the level of non-US deaths in Iraq and I can't imagine there would be much interest if it was. So the first thing to remember is that most people are probably largely unaware of what's actually happening.

Secondly, Bush's claim to be a christian is as genuine as anybody else's -- he's picking and choosing what to believe out of the bible like everybody else -- and within the limits of the term, I don't see why he can't call himself a christian, especially if it's a politically beneficial for him to do so.

Finally, various self-describing christians on this board have supported the war in Iraq, and more pointedly, explained that the Mosaic commandment about killing is actually a law against "murder", where "murder" is defined as killing somebody without permission from a law somewhere that says that you can. Over the last few years, Bush has exercised his executive privilege many times, which is the legal equivalent in the USA of allowing him to ignore whatever law he doesn't like, and to implement ones that he does, so he's probably well able to justify the deaths of thousands. To himself at least.

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote:

Jimmy Carter was a born again Christian and nobody seem to be as worried about him. So I don't think Bush's faith as much to do with it.

Carter was a Democrat and the Democrats in the USA never had the religious tie-in that the Republicans had (and continue to have) with the religious right and extreme right. Bush's wearing of his religion on his sleeve is an important signal to the large numbers of self-describing evangelical voters who have become politically active in the USA over the last 25 years or so -- ever since Reagan's political handlers sat up and noticed that they were "political firewood" (to use what I believe was Jerry Fallwell's phrase).

PDN

robindch wrote:

Carter was a Democrat and the Democrats in the USA never had the religious tie-in that the Republicans had (and continue to have) with the religious right and extreme right. Bush's wearing of his religion on his sleeve is an important signal to the large numbers of self-describing evangelical voters who have become politically active in the USA over the last 25 years or so -- ever since Reagan's political handlers sat up and noticed that they were "political firewood" (to use what I believe was Jerry Fallwell's phrase).

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. The Democrats have a tie-in with huge numbers of evangelicals in the US - the black churches. Americans, much more than Europeans, tend to be single-issue voters - and Iraq is way down their list of priorities.

I know many white evangelical Christians who vote Republican for one reason only - abortion. They hate what they see in Iraq, they hate the cronyism of Bush, but they see the numbers of unborn children being killed as the defining issue. Therefore they will continue to hold their noses and vote Republican in the belief (mistaken IMO) that there is a prospect of a Republican administration overturning Roe versus Wade.

Most black evangelical Christians are also pro-life, but it is not the defining issue for them. Due to their history (slavery & segregation) social issues such as housing, jobs, immigration etc. are much more emotive. Be assured that Hillary Clinton will be standing in a lot of evangelical pulpits in the next 2 years, knowing that black evangelicals will hold their noses concerning her pro-abortion stance and vote for her anyway.

Politically the Republicans have made a huge mistake by putting themselves on the wrong side of the fence (no pun intended) of the immigration debate. Evangelicalism in the US is getting browner and browner. Hispanic churches are the fastest growing segment of evangelicalism. These latino believers tend to be socially & politically conservative, but none of this will make them vote for a party that is against their defining issue of immigration.

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote:

Jimmy Carter was a born again Christian and nobody seem to be as worried about him. So I don't think Bush's faith as much to do with it.

Yes Carter was a good president and stuck to trying to arrange peace between Israel and Egypt, two nations with rather stubborn leaders at the time. His last book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid is a brilliant read.

robindch

PDN wrote:

I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

It's difficult to summarize accurately 25 years of American politics in three minutes and two sentences

What I found interesting about the religious tie-in to the Republicans was how cleverly and cynically it was managed from the religious side -- Falwell, Robertson and others approached the party in the late 70's and guaranteed support for the party amongst its believer-base in return for limited support of the administration. Reagan made much about abortion in the 1979 election, and the religious right thought he was going to do something about it, just as they thought that Bush was going to do something about it in 2000 and it and gay marriage in 2004. I don't believe religious Americans actually understand what their Supreme Court is for, or how their Constitution works.