How do you determine those who actually know God from the rest?
Certainly I am not the judge of all things... I leave that to God.
But as a Christian, we have our own litmus test. I would suppose that each religion has their own litmus test.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How do you determine those who actually know God from the rest?
Here's some aspirin for that headache.
Ah, but how would you distinguish between them?Some know God...
Some think they know God...
Some lie...
Some are deluded...
Some need to see a psychologist.
My criticism of Religion is the claim to know anything about God, at all.
My position is man knows nothing about God. I assume this is the default position of atheists. Am I wrong?
People who say God is whatever... loving, all powerful, Just, merciful, has a plan for all of us etc.
From whence does this knowledge about God come from?
I know nothing about God and neither do you. You can have faith that God possesses whatever properties you feel God should possess, but based on what? Imagining if a God did exist, this is what God ought to be like?
You have the Bible, Quran etc... So why do you feel these folks were in any better position than you to have knowledge about God.
Not that I'm going to go about calling believers liars. I just think they feel a certainty that they don't actually possess.
People think I'm going to debate with them about things. But I'm getting too old to do everyone's homework for them. If they don't want to risk learning something, that's their problem, and I refuse to make it mine.
Some know God...
Some think they know God...
Some lie...
Some are deluded...
Some need to see a psychologist.
My criticism of Religion is the claim to know anything about God, at all.
My position is man knows nothing about God. I assume this is the default position of atheists. Am I wrong?
People who say God is whatever... loving, all powerful, Just, merciful, has a plan for all of us etc.
From whence does this knowledge about God come from?
I know nothing about God and neither do you. You can have faith that God possesses whatever properties you feel God should possess, but based on what? Imagining if a God did exist, this is what God ought to be like?
You have the Bible, Quran etc... So why do you feel these folks were in any better position than you to have knowledge about God.
Not that I'm going to go about calling believers liars. I just think they feel a certainty that they don't actually possess.
But the litmus test is a scientific one, that determines acids/bases through a measure of pH. I could not do a litmus test in a Catholic church on a thimble of Chateau Margaux '86, and then have a different result on the same thimbleful in a synagogue in Brussels or a "Little Mosque on the Prairie."Certainly I am not the judge of all things... I leave that to God.
But as a Christian, we have our own litmus test. I would suppose that each religion has their own litmus test.
Isn't that your ego taking hold, you thinking that the problem lies with me and that you are the sole bearer of wisdom I must accept or else you will consider me to be ignorant for not having prescribed to your personal construct of homework?
Maybe, but not likely. I can always be wrong. But in this case, you're most likely the one in the wrong. If you were in the right, you'd be able to argue your case, not just attack me. Or at the least, you'd be able to link me to an article that makes your case for you -- as I did for you.
I've always wondered how anyone can claim to know for sure what the experiences of another person were. Maybe you could explain that to me.Amazingly, men throughout history have claimed to express the word of god, and those men were followed to the point where new religions were created. Take Mormonism, for example. There's no way Joseph Smith was in any way receiving the word of god, and yet he was a good enough con man (a historical fact of his past that seemed to be erased through holy intervention) to convince a small following that eventually became a bigger following that turned into a religion.
Logical fallacies can be wrongly used, which I have already stated.
Incorrectly Calling Logical Fallacies
Ah, but how would you distinguish between them?
To me, of course, that is an absolutely crucial question. I doubt that it would seem even interesting to you, since I bet I already know in which category you place yourself (only by virtue of actually looking at the categories, and seeing that there are 3 you would certainly deny about yourself.)
Certainly I am not the judge of all things... I leave that to God.
But as a Christian, we have our own litmus test. I would suppose that each religion has their own litmus test.
Logic dictates that if someone cannot properly provide the evidence, then that something is not a part of reality.
But the litmus test is a scientific one, that determines acids/bases through a measure of pH. I could not do a litmus test in a Catholic church on a thimble of Chateau Margaux '86, and then have a different result on the same thimbleful in a synagogue in Brussels or a "Little Mosque on the Prairie."
How, then, do you suppose that one person can apply their "litmus test" for knowledge of God to assert that God wants Muslim kafir (non-believers) killed, and your "litmus test" for knowledge of God says, "no way?" Do you each know a different God? Are there different gods? Or is your "litmus test" really just a measure of your own faith in what you believe, irrespective of what actually is?
I've always wondered how anyone can claim to know for sure what the experiences of another person were. Maybe you could explain that to me.
This is a logical fallacy.
For thousands of years sailors came back from the sea with tales of giant squid. All those years not a single shred of evidence other than the tales. Widely considered to be fiction and overactive imaginations. But recently in the last 20 years or so evidence has been presented. Now giant squids are real, as they have been proven to exist. No longer fictional tales of horror.
Your logic is faulty because the giant squid has existed in reality this whole time. Because of its elusive nature, its environment (deep dark ocean) and its biology, evidence is scarce to say the least. But the lack of evidence does not immediately make something not a part of reality. As proven by the giant squid in 2004.
Who knows what evidence may be found one day that does prove the existence of God. Real tangible evidence.
It just something someone who does not have faith could fully understand. At least not in the same way someone with faith does.
Undoubtedly some religious folk do possess a false sense of certainty, I won't deny that. They go through the motions and do what they think they should be done, religious larpers if you will.
I have never seen God. I have never heard His voice. But I have felt His presence and love. I may not understand how He works and the things He does, but I know He loves us nonetheless. That is faith. That is why someone without faith can never fully understand, because to know it means you would have to have it.
From my viewpoint, it is kind of hard for anyone to know anything about something they cannot even demonstrate exists. But I would not call them all liars, in fact, very few are liars. They may be deluded, they may be misinformed, they may be misinterpreting an experience or feeling. I rarely doubt the sincerity of a person's religious beliefs, only the basis for the beliefs.