Criteria for God's Word

[2PhiloVoid]

Someone got up on the wrong side of bed. No, I will not watch the movie again @Tree of Life is asking what criteria we would accept for God's Word? I happily admitted that I do not know. I watched this movie when it came out. I remember it being a great movie. I also remember it touching quite a bit on 'faith' and 'religion'.

Let me elaborate on my prior point.... When the ship 'looked' to drop straight through, plunging into the water, all viewed the project as a failure. Jodie insisted she went to 'another place', for a period of time. The only one, whom took her story on 'faith' was Matthew - (the religious guy). But immediately, when Angela and James were made aware of the new evidence, that the recorder recorded for 18 hours, they both had a 'change of heart', or a pause, and no longer would require blind faith, to just take Jodie's story at face value. Seems as though, in that case, the criteria to believe Jodie was delusional or completely mistaken, was now demonstrated otherwise by evidence

Moving forward, when someone states, 'God told me to this or that', WHAT CRITERIA would we deem acceptable? Well, what criteria would any of us deem as acceptable to take their claim as even plausible???

Like I have stated, I don't know for sure? All we know is that many claim to speak to Him/God, but many come from differing 'faiths' and beliefs, in many differing god(s). They are likely not all right. Right? But they all can certainly be wrong.

I now present to you, as I have of @Tree of Life

Here's a logical starting point or stance.... I doubt God has spoken to anyone, until such time as to any given demonstration otherwise. I feel this is a fairly descent default stance to take, verses the contrary - that God speaks to everyone, by default. How about you? How did [you] discern God does actually speak to certain people, or all people?

When someone claims God told them to kill their child, how do we know if they are delusional, mistaken, or lying?

You've conveniently skipped the whole shebang in the movie that involved a 'hearing' at the end.......

 

[Moral Orel]

I would propose that a word from God would claim to be a word from God.

Why?

 

[cvanwey]

You've conveniently skipped the whole shebang in the movie that involved a 'hearing' at the end.......

What specifically about it? And why is it relevant? The 'hearing' did NOT disclose what I mentioned. The 18 hours of footage was only disclosed to Angela Bassett and James Woods, after the 'hearing'. They both were then exposed to evidence which likely tilted their prior position accordingly

Which would then raise the topic of external world skepticism... Did she go to another realm, but go into a sleep state and dream the entire process? Did she go to another realm and see what she actually said she saw? Did she vanish for 18 hours, but go nowhere? Other other other other.....

So we again ask ourselves... What 'evidence' is enough 'evidence' to overturn extreme doubt of someone's claim?

Now, getting to the actual meat and potatoes of the OP.... (i.e.) again.... For which you 'conveniently skipped.'

A mother claims God told her to kill her child. How does one decipher truth, (verse) a lie, a delusion, or a mistake?

 

[Tree of Life]

Why?

The alternative seems implausible. Why would God go through the trouble of communicating without making it clear that he has indeed communicated? Presidents, for example, don’t sign executive orders with a pen name.

 

[Lukaris]

I believe God has given us the way to live according to His word in which we try to apply our conscience. It is by His commandments ( or in rebellion) that we live our lives. The prophet Ezekiel testifies ( Ezekiel 18:4-9) which clearly applies to all people whether they know it or not. Christians have the advantage by knowing their Savior & keeping His commandments ( see Ephesians 2:8-10, Romans 13, John 14:15-18 etc. etc.). Still everyone ( Christian or non Christian) will live in ways God desires of us or not ( John 5:22-30, Romans 2, Psalms 15 etc.).

There are virtuous Christians & non Christians. There are non virtuous Christians & non Christians. A person can either believe this or not. I would hope at least anyone would consider the Lord’s commandments as something to live life by ( Matthew 19:16-19 etc.).

 

[BNR32FAN]

Suppose that a personal God exists. Suppose that this God does communicate with humanity. I think it's safe to assume that if God exists then we should expect that he would communicate with us, but that's an argument for another thread. Let's just suppose that here. The question now would be "where has God spoken?" How can we access God's words or communication with God? How would we know God's words when we encounter them?

What would you propose are critera for determining whether something is a word from God?

I'll just give one idea as an example. I would propose that a word from God would claim to be a word from God.

it would be proclaimed by His church that was established by the apostles He chose.

 

[BNR32FAN]

What specifically about it? And why is it relevant? The 'hearing' did NOT disclose what I mentioned. The 18 hours of footage was only disclosed to Angela Bassett and James Woods, after the 'hearing'. They both were then exposed to evidence which likely tilted their prior position accordingly

Which would then raise the topic of external world skepticism... Did she go to another realm, but go into a sleep state and dream the entire process? Did she go to another realm and see what she actually said she saw? Did she vanish for 18 hours, but go nowhere? Other other other other.....

So we again ask ourselves... What 'evidence' is enough 'evidence' to overturn extreme doubt of someone's claim?

Now, getting to the actual meat and potatoes of the OP.... (i.e.) again.... For which you 'conveniently skipped.'

A mother claims God told her to kill her child. How does one decipher truth, (verse) a lie, a delusion, or a mistake?

God would not give a commandment that is against His commandments.

 

[cvanwey]

God would not give a commandment that is against His commandments.

Maybe you did not see my response? You are aware of the difference between 'kill' and 'murder,' right?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Maybe you did not see my response? You are aware of the difference between 'kill' and 'murder,' right?

No I’m sorry I didn’t see your response and yes I’m very aware of the difference between kill and murder. Obviously God commanded the Jews to kill many people but He never commanded them to murder anyone.

 

[cvanwey]

No I’m sorry I didn’t see your response and yes I’m very aware of the difference between kill and murder. Obviously God commanded the Jews to kill many people but He never commanded them to murder anyone.

No worries

Wouldn't it be safe to say if God tells you to kill someone, it would be classified as a kill, and not murder? According to the Bible, this would be so...

Think about it.... The Commandments were written in the OT, and murder was deemed unlawful back then too.

Furthermore, the golden rule was issued in the OT, just as it was issued in the NT.

Getting back to the hypothetical question, "how do we know God did not tell person A to kill person B"?

If the same exact rules apply then, as they do now, then how would you know? And further still, if the laws changed, who's to say they will not change again? Aren't absolute morals never-changing?

 

[Lukaris]

I think what are understood as excessive aspects of God in the Old Testament are people in ancient times comprehending God while living in a harsh world. The book of Ecclesiastes seems to represent an important leveling process. Important expressions of the commandments begin in Genesis 9, Deuteronomy 5, Deuteronomy 6, Leviticus 19 etc. Solomon concludes in Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 to fear God & keep the commandments. Our Lord Jesus Christ sums up the law & prophets in the golden rule ( Matthew 7:12, Matthew 7:1-12) & the 2 great commandments ( Matthew 22:36-40, Matthew 19:16-19 etc.).

Still the basic moral laws found like in Exodus 20, Exodus 21, Exodus 22, Exodus 23, Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20 etc. are mostly in effect but must be weighed against the Sermon on the Mount ( Matthew 5, Matthew 6, Matthew 7). The Lord affirms the laws given to Moses ( for ex. Matthew 15:1-20 ) as does St. Paul ( for ex. Romans 1).

 

[BNR32FAN]

No worries

Wouldn't it be safe to say if God tells you to kill someone, it would be classified as a kill, and not murder? According to the Bible, this would be so...

Think about it.... The Commandments were written in the OT, and murder was deemed unlawful back then too.

Furthermore, the golden rule was issued in the OT, just as it was issued in the NT.

Getting back to the hypothetical question, "how do we know God did not tell person A to kill person B"?

If the same exact rules apply then, as they do now, then how would you know? And further still, if the laws changed, who's to say they will not change again? Aren't absolute morals never-changing?

Killing a child is murder according to the law and God has taught that we are to obey the laws of the land and respect the governing authorities.

“Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭13:1-2‬ ‭NASB

 

[Moral Orel]

The alternative seems implausible. Why would God go through the trouble of communicating without making it clear that he has indeed communicated? Presidents, for example, don’t sign executive orders with a pen name.

Maybe God wants us to act a certain way without feeling coerced by an omnipotent being. Why is that implausible?

 

[Tree of Life]

Maybe God wants us to act a certain way without feeling coerced by an omnipotent being. Why is that implausible?

If this were the case, why would God communicate verbally with us? He probably would not communicate at all. We are to presume, per the OP, that God wants to communicate and has communicated.

 

[cvanwey]

Killing a child is murder according to the law and God has taught that we are to obey the laws of the land and respect the governing authorities.

“Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭13:1-2‬ ‭NASB

If God orders the killing, or warrants the allowance of the killing, it is not murder. Right?

"Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death."

"All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense."

"Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants."

Please also recall that the 'golden rule' was already in place, twice in Leviticus 19.

 

[cvanwey]

If this were the case, why would God communicate verbally with us? He probably would not communicate at all. We are to presume, per the OP, that God wants to communicate and has communicated.

Maybe He does not communicate with us at all? Think about it @Tree of Life ...

We have countless anecdotal claims of God's contact. But we also have countless other religions, which would infer differing god(s). As I stated prior, they cannot all be right, but they could certainly all be wrong or mistaken.

Getting back to the OP, how are you able to discern the ones whom have and have not been contacted?

 

[cvanwey]

I think what are understood as excessive aspects of God in the Old Testament are people in ancient times comprehending God while living in a harsh world.

Sounds like rationalization to me? World 'suffering' has apparently not stopped.

Many still live in, what most of us would consider, a 'harsh' world, or a 'harsh' reality. There still exists many 'third world' countries. There still exists many 'primitive' locations. There still exists locations under 'dictatorship'. There still exists many, even in first world countries, with a pretty 'jacked up' up-bringing.

The book of Ecclesiastes seems to represent an important leveling process. Important expressions of the commandments begin in Genesis 9, Deuteronomy 5, Deuteronomy 6, Leviticus 19 etc. Solomon concludes in Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 to fear God & keep the commandments. Our Lord Jesus Christ sums up the law & prophets in the golden rule ( Matthew 7:12, Matthew 7:1-12) & the 2 great commandments ( Matthew 22:36-40, Matthew 19:16-19 etc.).

The 'golden rule' was already expressed twice in Leviticus 19. Did this rule not apply, or was not in affect in the OT? If not, why not? Didn't God issue this law?

And more importantly, is this the best God could do? Seems as though we have confusion, which would more-so look to be the workings of man, and man alone; verses from a God?

Still the basic moral laws found like in Exodus 20, Exodus 21, Exodus 22, Exodus 23, Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20 etc. are mostly in effect but must be weighed against the Sermon on the Mount ( Matthew 5, Matthew 6, Matthew 7). The Lord affirms the laws given to Moses ( for ex. Matthew 15:1-20 ) as does St. Paul ( for ex. Romans 1).

Telling readers some can beat and own other people for life as property, while, on the other hand, also telling readers to treat all others like you would like to be treated, is contradictory.

 

[Lukaris]

Sounds like rationalization to me? World 'suffering' has apparently not stopped.

Many still live in, what most of us would consider, a 'harsh' world, or a 'harsh' reality. There still exists many 'third world' countries. There still exists many 'primitive' locations. There still exists locations under 'dictatorship'. There still exists many, even in first world countries, with a pretty 'jacked up' up-bringing.



The 'golden rule' was already expressed twice in Leviticus 19. Did this rule not apply, or was not in affect in the OT? If not, why not? Didn't God issue this law?

And more importantly, is this the best God could do? Seems as though we have confusion, which would more-so look to be the workings of man, and man alone; verses from a God?



Telling readers some can beat and own other people for life as property, while, on the other hand, also telling readers to treat all others like you would like to be treated, is contradictory.

Rationalization? You haphazardly declare that I deny suffering exists. The Lord knows better than you ( John 16:33) & overcomes this by offering us everlasting life ( John 3:16-21).

You disparage the golden rule & distort the way we are to apply it while its application is contingent upon love of God & neighbor. It is from this that Christians perform their manual works in life ( Matthew 19:16-19). I would hope you agree that stealing, lying, murdering etc. are wrong.

I provided whole chapters of scripture that outline social conduct of basic moral laws. Laws telling people to help the poor, not steal, not commit inappropriate behavior with animals etc. and you infer these involve beating & owning other people?

In light of the Sermon on the Mount, mercy & repentance (from God) replace harsh penalties ( instituted by men) for immorality but the moral code of God remains. Under the law of Moses, God was understood as too personally harsh & remote in His mercy. The people of Moses were no better or worse than anyone ( Romans 11). Still, salvation is of the Jews ( John 4:22).

 

[cvanwey]

Please note the take-away from this conversation... Which is to say... If such a God does exist, He seems fine with issuing and ordering direct contradiction to His people. If such a God does exist, are you okay with this synopsis?

Rationalization? You haphazardly declare that I deny suffering exists.

I did no such thing. I'm sure you do agree suffering still exists, which then raises question as to why you would decide to use such a defense in the first place?

According to the Bible, times will be 'jacked-up' until God/Jesus returns to end suffering entirely. Your given rationalization does not match with the situation at hand.

Please note what you stated:

"I think what are understood as excessive aspects of God in the Old Testament are people in ancient times comprehending God while living in a harsh world."

If you and I agree the world is harsh always, then your prior given argument looks to loose credibility.

The Lord knows better than you ( John 16:33) & overcomes this by offering us everlasting life ( John 3:16-21).

Yet another affirmation of yours, to demonstrate my point. If God knows the world is harsh, then and now, then He offers all would-be followers a 'light at the end of the tunnel'.

You disparage the golden rule & distort the way we are to apply it while its application is contingent upon love of God & neighbor.

I did no such thing. I'm pointing out we have an apparent direct conflict. God tells His readers/followers to treat others as you would treat yourself - (the golden rule). But then also tells His readers/followers, in other places, it is okay to own other humans as property for life. And like I already stated, Leviticus 19 already discloses the golden rule twice.

Can you explain the apparent conflict between the golden rule while <also> telling your readers it's okay to own others as life time property?

It is from this that Christians perform their manual works in life ( Matthew 19:16-19). I would hope you agree that stealing, lying, murdering etc. are wrong.

Yes I do. But, like I've been saying, if God orders one to kill, it is not murder, right? If God sanctions a law to destroy all disobedient humans, it is no longer murder, right? If God tells you to take something or someone, it is not deemed theft, right?

I provided whole chapters of scripture that outline social conduct of basic moral laws. Laws telling people to help the poor, not steal, not commit inappropriate behavior with animals etc. and you infer these involve beating & owning other people?

My point is we have contradiction within such pages. Does it not allow for lifetime ownership and the beating of humans?

I could read the Bible, from cover to cover, 12 times, but those passages will remain.

In light of the Sermon on the Mount, mercy & repentance (from God) replace harsh penalties ( instituted by men) for immorality but the moral code of God remains. Under the law of Moses, God was understood as too personally harsh & remote in His mercy. The people of Moses were no better or worse than anyone ( Romans 11). Still, salvation is of the Jews ( John 4:22).

Again, the golden rule was mentioned in the OT. But if you want to stay with the NT exclusively, this is still fine.

Jesus does not abolish owning other humans as property, in this sermon. This leads the way for many to perpetually rationalize permanent allowances in further doing so; without it being considered 'bad' by God. This also conflicts with the re-issued golden rule in the NT. Can you explain?

 

[muichimotsu]

Suppose that a personal God exists. Suppose that this God does communicate with humanity. I think it's safe to assume that if God exists then we should expect that he would communicate with us, but that's an argument for another thread. Let's just suppose that here. The question now would be "where has God spoken?" How can we access God's words or communication with God? How would we know God's words when we encounter them?

What would you propose are critera for determining whether something is a word from God?

I'll just give one idea as an example. I would propose that a word from God would claim to be a word from God.

Surprised no one has pointed out the circularity and tautology involved with the idea that the word from God would claim to be a word from God. Of course that would be the case, but it only seems to reinforce the anthropocentric nature of such revelations and that they cannot be falsified as coming from the specific god they refer to

And even if I granted some personal God, I'd sooner believe it was the "God" from Godfellas in Futurama or other entities that have such powers, but are not qualified in such a way that we cannot investigate them at all, like the Abrahamic or even Deistic God.