Theists, what would you reject as a communication from God?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is, obviously, a direct response to the thread "Atheists, what would you consider a direct communication from God."

So, theists, if I were to tell you on this forum that I have just personally heard from God, told to me in a way that convinced me utterly (the lights went out, yet I could still see, I couldn't hear anything, but the words formed in my head like magic), that God wants us all to abandon formal religions because they are doing huge harm among his people -- war, terrorism, killing, etc. -- do you believe me? Why or why not?

If another Joseph Smith came along and proclaimed that he found even more texts, not on gold tablets but ones made of actual sapphire and diamonds, and they disputed what the first Joseph Smith claims he found, would you believe him? Why or why not?

If you found what appeared to be an ancient text that told a story of a fellow named Apuleius had been turned into a donkey, would you believe it? There is such a text, it's called Apuleius and the Golden ***.

For what reason would you reject the presumed revelations in the Mahabharata, or the Granth Guru Sahib?

I welcome all other suggested communications from God, and responses to why you would or would not accept them.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

So, theists, if I were to tell you on this forum that I have just personally heard from God, told to me in a way that convinced me utterly (the lights went out, yet I could still see, I couldn't hear anything, but the words formed in my head like magic), that God wants us all to abandon formal religions because they are doing huge harm among his people -- war, terrorism, killing, etc. -- do you believe me? Why or why not?

If you ask me this and what I know and experience today and you weren't under the influence of alcohol or any mind altering drug I'd believe you, but just because I believe you doesn't mean that it is for me. For example you'd have to have specific messages in addition to what you claim to substantiate your truth to convince me further. I mean, yeah, you talked to God and I believe you but I never had the same experience so it would require you to be more in-depth about the message you receive that would qualify for me to make a lifestyle change.

 

[George-ananda]

Theists, what would you reject as a communication from God?

Claims that seem to contradict what the many sources that I think are on the same page say. It would be my judgment call.

 

[WalterTrull]

Our father is in heaven. (Ba doom boom.) The structure of the universe explained in 5 words. That we are alive is constant communication. Man, that's personal. Every thing we are, see, touch, and feel is word of God. Accept them? Strange question.

(In my humble opinion)

 

[Muffled]

This is, obviously, a direct response to the thread "Atheists, what would you consider a direct communication from God."

So, theists, if I were to tell you on this forum that I have just personally heard from God, told to me in a way that convinced me utterly (the lights went out, yet I could still see, I couldn't hear anything, but the words formed in my head like magic), that God wants us all to abandon formal religions because they are doing huge harm among his people -- war, terrorism, killing, etc. -- do you believe me? Why or why not?

If another Joseph Smith came along and proclaimed that he found even more texts, not on gold tablets but ones made of actual sapphire and diamonds, and they disputed what the first Joseph Smith claims he found, would you believe him? Why or why not?

If you found what appeared to be an ancient text that told a story of a fellow named Apuleius had been turned into a donkey, would you believe it? There is such a text, it's called Apuleius and the Golden ***.

For what reason would you reject the presumed revelations in the Mahabharata, or the Granth Guru Sahib?

I welcome all other suggested communications from God, and responses to why you would or would not accept them.

I believe that would contradict what God said in the Bible. God does not contradict Himself. also God is not apt to throw away the baby with the bath water. God ended animal sacrifice with the destruction of the Temple but kept the institution of sacrifice though bread and wine.

I believe I did not believe the first one. The Mormons asked me to pray about this and I did. The result was that the text did not come from tablets.

Any text not from God could be questionable but I do believe transmutation is possible. After all Jesus turned water into wine.

I believe I haven't read all of these. I have read the Gita and dismiss Krishna's claim to be an incarnation of God since he believed in souls inhabiting animals and God has told me that can't happen.

I once had a voice tell me to drive my car off the road. That would have been hazardous to my health. I recognized it as an attack by an evil spirit. God has given me the discernment to tell whether a spirit is from God or evil.

 

[Muffled]

If you ask me this and what I know and experience today and you weren't under the influence of alcohol or any mind altering drug I'd believe you, but just because I believe you doesn't mean that it is for me. For example you'd have to have specific messages in addition to what you claim to substantiate your truth to convince me further. I mean, yeah, you talked to God and I believe you but I never had the same experience so it would require you to be more in-depth about the message you receive that would qualify for me to make a lifestyle change.

I believe that is the nub of the problem. I f one person hears one thing from God and another hears something contradictory then how does one know which one is hearing God and the other one isn't.

 

[danieldemol]

This is, obviously, a direct response to the thread "Atheists, what would you consider a direct communication from God."

So, theists, if I were to tell you on this forum that I have just personally heard from God, told to me in a way that convinced me utterly (the lights went out, yet I could still see, I couldn't hear anything, but the words formed in my head like magic), that God wants us all to abandon formal religions because they are doing huge harm among his people -- war, terrorism, killing, etc. -- do you believe me? Why or why not?

If another Joseph Smith came along and proclaimed that he found even more texts, not on gold tablets but ones made of actual sapphire and diamonds, and they disputed what the first Joseph Smith claims he found, would you believe him? Why or why not?

If you found what appeared to be an ancient text that told a story of a fellow named Apuleius had been turned into a donkey, would you believe it? There is such a text, it's called Apuleius and the Golden ***.

For what reason would you reject the presumed revelations in the Mahabharata, or the Granth Guru Sahib?

I welcome all other suggested communications from God, and responses to why you would or would not accept them.

To me, the value of being a liberal is that I don’t have to accept anything as being the 100% truth, rather I see it as truth filtered through the coloured lense of the individual receiving the revelation.

This allows me to apply my own lense which I do my utmost to purify, yet acknowledge as being human like everyone else’s to sort through the soil of human understanding for the diamonds amongst the dirt, the baby amidst the bath water, the truths mixed with the human errors of the humans who experienced them.

Thus I feel free to take any true statement made by Joseph Smith or you or any Prophet and ignore or reject the contradictions as the mythology or perceptions of the individual and would encourage those brave enough to form their own perceptions to do so.

 

[Vinayaka]

I personally reject anything and everything that goes through another person, or prophet, or avatar, or manifestation. In eastern mystic traditions, there is only one true source of knowledge about God, and that is direct personal experience. The best of Gurus would say, 'Don't listen to me. Why ask me?, and all that. They say repeatedly, "Go figure it out for yourself. Meditate, meditate, and meditate some more. Go in, and in, and in, and in." All those scriptures, all those words, it's all someone else's 'knowledge' and there is no intellectual way to know if it's truth or not. Anybody can say anything. If a person says, "I love you', it doesn't mean they love you, it means they said, 'I love you', and that's all you can say about it. Same with persons who say, God exists'. You can't even determine whether or not that person believes in God. Dig deeper, and maybe they don't.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't have to accept what anyone says about the Gods. If a God wants me to know something and it's terribly important, They'll tell me Themselves. Now, if I were getting messages to harm myself or others, I would surely not listen to that.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I believe that is the nub of the problem. I f one person hears one thing from God and another hears something contradictory then how does one know which one is hearing God and the other one isn't.

Good question. I don't know. I guess it boils down to faith. If something comes from God I would assume it would be distinctive and clear. I would like to think if God speaks to us individually, the conveyed message would be for us and nobody else which is why the one questioning would be skeptical.

 

[A REAL CHRISTIAN]

According to 2 tim 3 16-17 and 1 corinthians chap 13 NOTHING past new testament times ( so just the bible) counts as communication.

 

[Muffled]

I personally reject anything and everything that goes through another person, or prophet, or avatar, or manifestation. In eastern mystic traditions, there is only one true source of knowledge about God, and that is direct personal experience. The best of Gurus would say, 'Don't listen to me. Why ask me?, and all that. They say repeatedly, "Go figure it out for yourself. Meditate, meditate, and meditate some more. Go in, and in, and in, and in." All those scriptures, all those words, it's all someone else's 'knowledge' and there is no intellectual way to know if it's truth or not. Anybody can say anything. If a person says, "I love you', it doesn't mean they love you, it means they said, 'I love you', and that's all you can say about it. Same with persons who say, God exists'. You can't even determine whether or not that person believes in God. Dig deeper, and maybe they don't.

I believe in taking people at their word until I find out different but also I have the Holy Spirit who can distinguish for me what is true and what is not.

 

[Muffled]

I don't have to accept what anyone says about the Gods. If a God wants me to know something and it's terribly important, They'll tell me Themselves. Now, if I were getting messages to harm myself or others, I would surely not listen to that.

I believe God will use people to talk to you. It is easier than trying to make a spiritual connection. That is why having Jesus present was so special because God could speak directly to people that way.

 

[Muffled]

Good question. I don't know. I guess it boils down to faith. If something comes from God I would assume it would be distinctive and clear. I would like to think if God speaks to us individually, the conveyed message would be for us and nobody else which is why the one questioning would be skeptical.

I believe one way to judge is by fruit. A divine tree does not produce a diseased branch.

 

[JJ50]

I believe one way to judge is by fruit. A divine tree does not produce a diseased branch.

Have you come across a divine tree?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I believe God will use people to talk to you. It is easier than trying to make a spiritual connection. That is why having Jesus present was so special because God could speak directly to people that way.

Sure, the Gods can use people in certain ways, like with random acts of kindness, but there's no such thing as prophets in my religion. You spiritually connect one on one with the Gods. There's no middlemen.