How do you know "God" has spoken to you?

[rpeg]

I'm not sure why the previous thread has been closed. I'd like to return to that conversation where we left off:

The quotes are from a previous user offering advice on how to tell if "God" has spoken to you.


"Does it witness to your spirit that it is from God?"

What does that mean? Is this only judged by the person making the claim?



"Does it fit in with the bible and it's teaching?"

This brings up the matter of textual criticism of the bible and understanding it's claims in the first place. It's also a matter of finding out how to understand it's contradictions and how to interpret it. Is there a definitive way to interpret or is it also up to the person to decide?



"Are the circumstances right?"
What does this mean?

 

[sk8Joyful]

You asked: "How do you know "God" has spoken to you?"

When you can ask questions , very few others have seriously considered,
&/or
provide insights which are heretofore otherwise not known.

 

[berachah]

- constantly being reminded of something through thought, circumstances or even other peoples actions or words
- through dreams and visions
- through scripture
But all of these mean nothing without the inner conviction and confirmation of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can turn anything into revelation of God's will for our lives and the lives of others.

 

[RobPhillips79]

My friend told me on the school bus one time when I was in freshman year that God spoke to him and honestly, I thought he was lying to me. I asked him what his voice was like and he replied that it was a booming voice. The thing is, he is THE most religious kid I knew at that time. I don't think he would lie to me. However, I didn't believe him anyway. I would be crazy to. Why would God speak to some and not to others? I wanted to be spoken to by God my whole life and I never heard no booming voice...

 

[Hakan101]

I'm not sure why the previous thread has been closed. I'd like to return to that conversation where we left off:

The quotes are from a previous user offering advice on how to tell if "God" has spoken to you.

"Does it witness to your spirit that it is from God?"

What does that mean? Is this only judged by the person making the claim?

"Does it fit in with the bible and it's teaching?"

This brings up the matter of textual criticism of the bible and understanding it's claims in the first place. It's also a matter of finding out how to understand it's contradictions and how to interpret it. Is there a definitive way to interpret or is it also up to the person to decide?

"Are the circumstances right?"
What does this mean?

The previous thread was closed because too many non-Christians were posting in it. Only the non-Christian who created the thread may respond in the thread. So it is good you made your own thread.

From my own knowledge, the "does it witness to your spirit" question basically means do you feel it is actually from God. I usually recognize this if it touches my heart, and I will notice constant "repetitions" of the message. As in I'll hear it several other times throughout the day besides from a church sermon. It's the first indicator you are feeling the Holy Spirit talking.

Next make sure it is fitting within the Bible's message. This isn't hard to do, thanks to the Holy Spirit. In fact I once met a man who claimed he rarely used the Bible in his ministry, he just learned to respond to the Holy Spirit.

The third quote you put there, I'm not sure what it means either. I'll tell you what I've heard though. After it's witnessed to your spirit, and is part of the message, there are two other things. It has to be a positive calling. The Holy Spirit does not call us to do negative things. For instance, we would not be called to go and kill innocent bystanders. That is not what the Holy Spirit does, it is not in line with the Bible's message either.

Lastly, the message you are hearing must be confirmed by someone else. For instance, the man I mentioned before who listens to the Holy Spirit, when he tells people what the Spirit has called him to do, they do not look at him like he's crazy and reject him. They always accept what he has to say. For instance, here is one of the stories he told our church. I actually found it online.

http://www.stevesisler.org/?p=308

 

[rpeg]

- constantly being reminded of something through thought, circumstances or even other peoples actions or words

This is called "Confirmation bias" (Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). We have a tendency to notice patterns or information when we want to confirm our own preconceptions.

- through dreams and visions

Is this serious? This certainly opens the floodgates of interpretation and messages. Some people have horrifying dreams...

- through scripture

I'm not sure what you mean. You can tell "god" has spoken to you because of scripture?

But all of these mean nothing without the inner conviction and confirmation of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can turn anything into revelation of God's will for our lives and the lives of others.

Can you tell me, in more detail, what the "holy spirit" is? I think there should be a better way to translate religious terminology into secular terminology and visa versa. How do you have confirmation of the "holy spirit"?

From my own knowledge, the "does it witness to your spirit" question basically means do you feel it is actually from God. I usually recognize this if it touches my heart, and I will notice constant "repetitions" of the message. As in I'll hear it several other times throughout the day besides from a church sermon. It's the first indicator you are feeling the Holy Spirit talking.

"Feelings" and repetition? Let's confront the matter of feelings. Considering the immensity of the issue (trying to recognize if a "god" is talking to you) I would think judging this by feelings is dangerous, amorphous and inconsistent. Added to that, shouldn't we factor in our own nature first? We are human beings and we feel. We are capable of immense emotion, irrationality, pain, happiness, a sense of bliss. We are very capable of these feelings without any claims of "gods". With that said, shouldn't we first understand that aspect of our psyche before we start using it as a way "detecting" messages from "god"? Why can't a feeling just be a feeling? How do we know if and when we're just delusional?

Now let's confront repetition. Again, this is a matter of confirmation bias. If you were obsessed with buying a new Jeep Wrangler, chances are as soon as you step outside and walk around the city, you'll see nothing by Jeep Wranglers everywhere. Why? Because you're at least sub-consciously now paying attention to that detail. You're at least implicitly looking for information to satiate your interests. On any other day, you would filter out that noise. If you were more concerned about losing your job, chances are you're not going to pay attention at all to what people around you are driving. We as human beings filter out the noise of environments all the time. This is studied. We also are able to hone our attention to very specific things as well.

Next make sure it is fitting within the Bible's message. This isn't hard to do, thanks to the Holy Spirit.

This isn't hard to do? Well, maybe you're right. On the other thread I brought up the matter of textual criticism of the bible. It's something I'm only now slightly learning. It regards analyzing how the bible was written. For example, did you know a large collection of illiterate scribes were tasked with "writing" these letters and passing it down to others? Did you know that in this process they changed words accidently, intentionally or by correcting something they thought was an error? In other words, the copy we have now is not that of the original manuscript. Consider this. People pour over the details of the bible, reaching conclusions on it's meaning but so many of the words there are not of the original. This is one reason why there are so many contradictions. Putting this together with the fact that people interpret it as they choose, you're still throwing a wide net over our goal - detecting whether or not a "god" has spoken to you. So you're right. It's not hard to claim that something "fits" with the bible's message because the bible's message can contain lots of nuance and ambiguity.

The Holy Spirit does not call us to do negative things. For instance, we would not be called to go and kill innocent bystanders. That is not what the Holy Spirit does, it is not in line with the Bible's message either.

When the bible does call for violence (don't make me cite those passages because you know I can), how do you explain that? How did you reach the conclusion that the bible does not excuse violence when there are passages that do excuse violence?

Lastly, the message you are hearing must be confirmed by someone else. For instance, the man I mentioned before who listens to the Holy Spirit, when he tells people what the Spirit has called him to do, they do not look at him like he's crazy and reject him. They always accept what he has to say.

How do outside observers "confirm" or prove that someone else is talking to "god"? You didn't explain that part.

 

[Hakan101]

"Feelings" and repetition? Let's confront the matter of feelings. Considering the immensity of the issue (trying to recognize if a "god" is talking to you) I would think judging this by feelings is dangerous, amorphous and inconsistent. Added to that, shouldn't we factor in our own nature first? We are human beings and we feel. We are capable of immense emotion, irrationality, pain, happiness, a sense of bliss. We are very capable of these feelings without any claims of "gods". With that said, shouldn't we first understand that aspect of our psyche before we start using it as a way "detecting" messages from "god"? Why can't a feeling just be a feeling? How do we know if and when we're just delusional?

Now let's confront repetition. Again, this is a matter of confirmation bias. If you were obsessed with buying a new Jeep Wrangler, chances are as soon as you step outside and walk around the city, you'll see nothing by Jeep Wranglers everywhere. Why? Because you're at least sub-consciously now paying attention to that detail. You're at least implicitly looking for information to satiate your interests. On any other day, you would filter out that noise. If you were more concerned about losing your job, chances are you're not going to pay attention at all to what people around you are driving. We as human beings filter out the noise of environments all the time. This is studied. We also are able to hone our attention to very specific things as well.

This isn't hard to do? Well, maybe you're right. On the other thread I brought up the matter of textual criticism of the bible. It's something I'm only now slightly learning. It regards analyzing how the bible was written. For example, did you know a large collection of illiterate scribes were tasked with "writing" these letters and passing it down to others? Did you know that in this process they changed words accidently, intentionally or by correcting something they thought was an error? In other words, the copy we have now is not that of the original manuscript. Consider this. People pour over the details of the bible, reaching conclusions on it's meaning but so many of the words there are not of the original. This is one reason why there are so many contradictions. Putting this together with the fact that people interpret it as they choose, you're still throwing a wide net over our goal - detecting whether or not a "god" has spoken to you. So you're right. It's not hard to claim that something "fits" with the bible's message because the bible's message can contain lots of nuance and ambiguity.

When the bible does call for violence (don't make me cite those passages because you know I can), how do you explain that? How did you reach the conclusion that the bible does not excuse violence when there are passages that do excuse violence?

How do outside observers "confirm" or prove that someone else is talking to "god"? You didn't explain that part.

Let me ask you something, did you read the story in the link I showed? I thought you would have at least one question to ask about it.

What do you mean by the immensity of the issue? We don't judge alone by our feelings, it is well-known that our "feelers" can mislead us. It seems counter-intuitive to understanding the Holy Spirit when you only examine the methods individually, rather than in a unified manner.

As with confirmation bias, it can just as easily be claimed that if you do not want to have faith in God, no evidence can convince you to believe in his existence. I've seen this plainly with several people before. They have a bitterness in their hearts that surfaces when presented with the evidence, and they respond aggressively. Not because it is coercive proof, but I believe it is because they know it's sufficient evidence to have faith, but they do not want to do that.

We have no proof of the Bible's inerrancy or errancy. We can trust that the scribes copied the Word as faithfully as possible, or we can doubt every word of it. I believe that no more than trivial words were mis-written (that a word? ), that the message is eternal and intact.

The message isn't confirmed by outsiders, it is confirmed by fellow believers. If you tell them about what you're feeling called for, they can confirm it in their own judgement and pray for guidance using the same methods as you. If they respond like you're outright crazy, that's a telling sign.

Anyone who uses the Bible to promote the wanton violence you see Christians commit (such as the atrocity in Norway) has a twisted message of Scripture in their minds. It is not from the Holy Spirit but of the Evil One. Jesus called us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and even our enemies. It's not just hard to use that for violence, I'd say it's nearly impossible. Which is why men often turn to the Old Testament and twist its words into a message of evil.

Back in the Civil Rights Movement, when Dr. King wrote his letters from Birmingham Jail, it was to pastors who were criticizing him for his actions, and they used the Scripture as a basis. King didn't ever tell them to stop being religious, he told them to get to the core of their faith, which doesn't promote segregation or violence against people of different belief or race.

 

[rpeg]

Let me ask you something, did you read the story in the link I showed? I thought you would have at least one question to ask about it.

I don't have time to read an additional story right now. I'd rather focus on your statements and explanations for the moment.

What do you mean by the immensity of the issue?

Making claims of receiving messages from a "god" is something I consider to be immense and a very significant claim. It is, in my opinion, not a small matter.

We don't judge alone by our feelings, it is well-known that our "feelers" can mislead us.

My issue is with the idea that a person would use their "feelings" at all to gauge something as significant as claiming a "god" has spoken to you.

It seems counter-intuitive to understanding the Holy Spirit when you only examine the methods individually, rather than in a unified manner.

If you're suggesting that the larger phenomenon of people claiming "feelings" relating to a "god" speaking to them is how we must judge fact then this opens the door to additional "gods"... Is this what you're trying to suggest? Then Vishnu must also talk to millions of people.

As with confirmation bias, it can just as easily be claimed that if you do not want to have faith in God, no evidence can convince you to believe in his existence.

Faith and evidence are not the same thing. If you have faith then wouldn't evidence be irrelevant? To my understanding, on religious terms "faith" is about making claims without evidence or facts -- it's about feelings. From a secular perspective, one should make judgements (especially of large claims) on the basis of the evidence and facts and not whether their feelings go this way or that way.

Confirmation bias is not the same as "faith". Confirmation bias doesn't inherently mean you ignore evidence to the contrary but that you look for evidence that supports your bias. Removing bias from observation and science is important. We can both agree about that. Because removing bias is important is exactly why secularists do not respect the claims of "faith" because that is the ultimate bias.

Again though, a theist should stick to one side of the issue. Is "god" real because of your "faith" or is "god" real because of evidence?

I've seen this plainly with several people before. They have a bitterness in their hearts that surfaces when presented with the evidence, and they respond aggressively. Not because it is coercive proof, but I believe it is because they know it's sufficient evidence to have faith, but they do not want to do that.

An anecdote. Okay. Throw some "evidence" at me, I've been looking for some time.

We have no proof of the Bible's inerrancy or errancy.

If you do not think contradictions are errancy, then okay. I suppose you're right since we can't compare it to the original manuscript. I have to say that's a wonderfully convenient position you're taking...

We can trust that the scribes copied the Word as faithfully as possible, or we can doubt every word of it.

You actually can not trust that every scribe copied it as faithfully as possible because some had intentions outside of copying it "faithfully". So does this open the door to "doubt"? You also don't really address my concern. If you want to judge whether a "god" is speaking to you, you're suggesting that feelings and the bible are two thirds of what you need to reach a conclusion. Do you not see the problems here? There are too many flaws in this process to reach a clear conclusion about this large claim.

The message isn't confirmed by outsiders, it is confirmed by fellow believers.

Why? Why do you require a bias to confirm something as massive as a communication from a "god"? If what you're dealing with is fact and truth, then anyone of any denomination should be able to observe it. Don't you think or do you disagree?

Do you realize that through your system of measuring a communication from a "god" that any religion on earth with any "god" can make the exact same claim and it would be as true as your claims? Is this truly the best a person can do to validate whether a "god" has spoken to them?

It appears to me to be a very shaky, flawed and biased process. So much so that I think it's more reasonable that we can not trust these claims until further evidence is available.

If you tell them about what you're feeling called for, they can confirm it in their own judgement and pray for guidance using the same methods as you.

So these other observers also have to have "feelings", confirmation bias and a similar interpretation of the bible? This to you is a good enough way to detect if a "god" is talking to you? The floodgates are open. According to your way of understanding information, facts and reality, anyone can claim "god" is talking to them and it will be as true as your claims.

Anyone who uses the Bible to promote the wanton violence you see Christians commit (such as the atrocity in Norway) has a twisted message of Scripture in their minds... Which is why men often turn to the Old Testament and twist its words into a message of evil.

Are saying that everything stated in the old testament is a message of "good"?

Back in the Civil Rights Movement, when Dr. King wrote his letters from Birmingham Jail, it was to pastors who were criticizing him for his actions, and they used the Scripture as a basis. King didn't ever tell them to stop being religious, he told them to get to the core of their faith, which doesn't promote segregation or violence against people of different belief or race.

Okay.

 

[ProScribe]

How do you know "God" has spoken to you?

Was given the knowledge of specific personal sins.

 

[zaksmummy]

Have you ever done something wrong, and had your conscience pricked? You know what you did was wrong and you have to go and put it right?

Well having a "witness in your spirit" is a bit like that. It doesnt just have to be about doing something wrong. You will read something in the bible, or someone will say something to you and you know, because you know, that God is speaking to you.

 

[Hakan101]

I don't have time to read an additional story right now. I'd rather focus on your statements and explanations for the moment.

Making claims of receiving messages from a "god" is something I consider to be immense and a very significant claim. It is, in my opinion, not a small matter.

My issue is with the idea that a person would use their "feelings" at all to gauge something as significant as claiming a "god" has spoken to you.

If you're suggesting that the larger phenomenon of people claiming "feelings" relating to a "god" speaking to them is how we must judge fact then this opens the door to additional "gods"... Is this what you're trying to suggest? Then Vishnu must also talk to millions of people.

Faith and evidence are not the same thing. If you have faith then wouldn't evidence be irrelevant? To my understanding, on religious terms "faith" is about making claims without evidence or facts -- it's about feelings. From a secular perspective, one should make judgements (especially of large claims) on the basis of the evidence and facts and not whether their feelings go this way or that way.

Confirmation bias is not the same as "faith". Confirmation bias doesn't inherently mean you ignore evidence to the contrary but that you look for evidence that supports your bias. Removing bias from observation and science is important. We can both agree about that. Because removing bias is important is exactly why secularists do not respect the claims of "faith" because that is the ultimate bias.

Again though, a theist should stick to one side of the issue. Is "god" real because of your "faith" or is "god" real because of evidence?

An anecdote. Okay. Throw some "evidence" at me, I've been looking for some time.

If you do not think contradictions are errancy, then okay. I suppose you're right since we can't compare it to the original manuscript. I have to say that's a wonderfully convenient position you're taking...

You actually can not trust that every scribe copied it as faithfully as possible because some had intentions outside of copying it "faithfully". So does this open the door to "doubt"? You also don't really address my concern. If you want to judge whether a "god" is speaking to you, you're suggesting that feelings and the bible are two thirds of what you need to reach a conclusion. Do you not see the problems here? There are too many flaws in this process to reach a clear conclusion about this large claim.

Why? Why do you require a bias to confirm something as massive as a communication from a "god"? If what you're dealing with is fact and truth, then anyone of any denomination should be able to observe it. Don't you think or do you disagree?

Do you realize that through your system of measuring a communication from a "god" that any religion on earth with any "god" can make the exact same claim and it would be as true as your claims? Is this truly the best a person can do to validate whether a "god" has spoken to them?

It appears to me to be a very shaky, flawed and biased process. So much so that I think it's more reasonable that we can not trust these claims until further evidence is available.

So these other observers also have to have "feelings", confirmation bias and a similar interpretation of the bible? This to you is a good enough way to detect if a "god" is talking to you? The floodgates are open. According to your way of understanding information, facts and reality, anyone can claim "god" is talking to them and it will be as true as your claims.

Are saying that everything stated in the old testament is a message of "good"?

Okay.

Trust me, it doesn't take long and is worth the read. http://www.stevesisler.org/?p=308

Can you be more clear about what you mean when you say "immense" or "significant?" I think we are inferring different things from those words.

Why does it surprise you that feelings are part of gauging God? He is a personal God, after all, who appeals to our spirit before all other things.

I wouldn't say I'm an expert on Hinduism, but as far as I know Vishnu doesn't speak to people in modern times. Perhaps some links would quickly clarify this?

If you're suggesting that the larger phenomenon of people claiming "feelings" relating to a "god" speaking to them is how we must judge fact then this opens the door to additional "gods"... Is this what you're trying to suggest? Then Vishnu must also talk to millions of people.

Here, I don't know how you came to this statement from the part you were quoting. But we don't have to merely rely on feelings of people. Measure what they feel against reality. For instance, when you read the story I linked, you will see that the man hears a very sudden and unsettling calling from the Holy Spirit. He doesn't want to respond to it, he feels certain it will backfire, but he responds anyways and discovers that indeed there was a purpose to it. I'd argue that this man would not have done what he did if it was anything but the Holy Spirit calling him.

Faith is evidence. Read the first verse of Hebrews 11. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." If you took the time to continue reading that chapter, Paul lists a great many people in the Old Testament who acted on faith and saw a response. Their faith was evidence of God's existence, because by trusting God, things happened. This is how it is for every Christian. When we put our faith in God, we do so with expectation.

Also I believe it is impossible for anyone to remove their bias of beliefs. We're people, not robots. Everyone lives their lives with their beliefs. In science, in politics, it's there. There's no reason we can't do these things without our beliefs, and no reason why we should. That's why an Atheist and a Christian can see the same thing and interpret it as evidence of God's existence or not.

There are no Bible contradictions. I'm sorry but there just aren't. I've seen people point out contradictions, and I've seen other people give perfectly legitimate explanations. If you can't provide proof that there is a contradiction, we can dismiss it as not being a contradiction. It's just your interpretation, like we have ours. I'm not in a convenient position, we're both taking these things on faith that we are correct. I'm putting my faith in God that there is no inerrancy, you're putting your faith in yourself that if we do not have an original text, what we have now is probably errant.

How do you know the scribes had reasons other than to copy it faithfully? Of course we can trust them, if we can trust God, then we can trust the scribes he appointed to preserve his Word. Just like we can choose not to trust them. Anything that requires faith leaves room for doubt. If there was never any doubt, would it really be faith?

I see no problem here. As I already explained faith before, surely you know by now that if we hear the Holy Spirit and act on faith, we will see a response. Faith takes the idea that "you have to make risks in order to succeed" one step further. When you take risks out of faith in God, you will succeed.

Why is it confirmed by believers, not outsiders? Simple. Outsiders have no idea what's going on with God, they don't even believe he exists! How would they know the first thing about the Holy Spirit? If anything outsiders would likely lead that person astray! Once again this is a situation that requires faith before all other things. It's no more a matter of bias than consulting a history professor on a historical event rather than a football coach is bias.

It may appear to be shaky to you, but the fact is millions of Christians have seen the results of their faith in God. If you do not have faith in God, it makes sense that you would see no results. Jesus said that there were people who saw, but did not see, and those who heard, but did not hear. A believer can see God working in his life, while an Atheist can see the same evidence and will not see it.

So these other observers also have to have "feelings", confirmation bias and a similar interpretation of the bible? This to you is a good enough way to detect if a "god" is talking to you? The floodgates are open. According to your way of understanding information, facts and reality, anyone can claim "god" is talking to them and it will be as true as your claims.

Again, you are singling out only one of my points and implying it is the sole basis of discerning the Holy Spirit. While anyone can claim God is talking to them, we can reason whether or not this is true using the points I listed. I think a great example of this is in the Harris vs Craig debate, in the Q&A section afterwards. There was that knucklehead who was obviously lying about God speaking to him in a dream the night before. Anyone who watches that wouldn't think for a second that he was being sincere. Yet how can we prove he was lying? We can't. What did Craig say in response to him? He flat out denied him, called him out for feigning sincerity and refused to answer his question. It took solid faith to do that. While we cannot prove or disprove anyone's claims of God speaking to them, there are many we Christians can easily dismiss, and there are many we can easily accept.

Do I think every message in the Old Testament is one of "good?" The quotations are important, what do you mean by "good?" Good in what way? Good for who? Even for those who believed in the Old Testament, I could say a lot of "bad" things still come their way.

 

[bling]

I'm not sure why the previous thread has been closed. I'd like to return to that conversation where we left off:

The quotes are from a previous user offering advice on how to tell if "God" has spoken to you.


"Does it witness to your spirit that it is from God?"

What does that mean? Is this only judged by the person making the claim?

[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif']We do not know right off without question that the “spirit” we are hearing if is from God or demons. We are told to tests each spirit. For its message has to be consistent with scripture. You can certainly consult with other committed Christians for counseling in the matter and they can help interpret the scriptures that apply.


[/FONT]

"Does it fit in with the bible and it's teaching?"

This brings up the matter of textual criticism of the bible and understanding it's claims in the first place. It's also a matter of finding out how to understand it's contradictions and how to interpret it. Is there a definitive way to interpret or is it also up to the person to decide?

The correct interpretation will be consistent with God being Love, fair, just and holy. The Bible is inspired, but it is not God dictated and “perfect” in that respect.

Inspired by God does not mean dictated by God, but why would God not write the perfectly written book for us? (The Muslims say the Quran is the perfect direct words of Allah.)

If the Bible was perfectly written in the Hebrew and Greek, you could scientifically proof that, because there would be no better way to say each word. That would also mean that the “Christian God” was scientifically proven to exist, since there would be no other reason for deity to write the New Testament. That means you do not “need” faith to believe in the Christian God, since you have knowledge as your source. But “faith” is needed and the little faith required to trust (faith) in the existence of a benevolent Creator is all that is needed. Knowledge also works against; your humbly accepting God’s free undeserving unconditional gift (charity) of Godly type Love. Knowledge promotes self reliance, esteem, pride and self glorification (the opposite of humility).

· Also if the “Bible” was perfectly written we would have to learn the Greek and Hebrew (big waste of time), would be our main reason to believe over Christ Himself (giving it worship status), we would pursue words and not the Word (Christ), and would be something to give your life to protect instead of being a tool for use.

Also the Bible is just one of several tools for the Christian and was not designed to help the non-Christian. The non-Christian might get something from scripture, but that is not what it was designed to do. The New Testament was written to first century believers and the Old Testament was for Jews (and Christians eventually).

By having ordinary followers record their personal understanding and making that become hugely important, we can realize how important our ordinary understanding inspired in us can be made hugely important. One simple follower with the indwelling Holy Spirit can make a huge contribution in the kingdom, but it will not be “the follower” contribution and it will be the allowing of the Spirit to work through him that counts.

"Are the circumstances right?"
What does this mean?

Why do you need this message? If it is to make money, look good among others, win an argument, for knowledge sake and any other selfish reason; it was not from God. It has to change you for the better, solve your problem and enable you to help others unconditionally.


The indwelling Holy Spirit is given individually as a personal guarantee; that God will fulfill His promises. A guarantee for me is not meant to be a guarantee for you, you will get your own guarentee with acceptance of God’s Charity.

 

[johnd1987]

I don't get what a lot of people get with the holy spirit. I get a warmth and shivers go up my back. Usually it happens when I am praying very genuinely or I stumble upon a breakthrough or at least make some progress in my End Times prophecys.

A couple nights ago I had a dream that was very relevant for me also in my dream god pretty much told me to apologize to someone I had hurt. When I woke up this person was in my house and crying. Also the theme of the dream was so symbolic and so bizarrely meaningful that I think it was legitimate and spiritual. It pretty much addressed all of the issues I had earlier that day. Also it helped me see I'm no saint at all. I'm a pretty big sinner which up to that point I had just sort of assumed I was less of a monster than most people. Naw I'm just as bad as everyone else.

I really needed that dream set me straight about a lot of things.

 

[golgotha61]

I'm not sure why the previous thread has been closed. I'd like to return to that conversation where we left off:

The quotes are from a previous user offering advice on how to tell if "God" has spoken to you.





"Does it fit in with the bible and it's teaching?"

This brings up the matter of textual criticism of the bible and understanding it's claims in the first place. It's also a matter of finding out how to understand it's contradictions and how to interpret it. Is there a definitive way to interpret or is it also up to the person to decide?



I believe the first thing God is going to say to you is that you need to know Christ as your savior. I am not trying to be difficult but the sin-darkened heart of the unrepentant man cannot understand the things of God: 1Cr 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
It is the Holy Spirit then that enlightens those who are in a right relationship with Him to comprehend the written Word of God. BTW there are no contradictions in the Bible.

Once this is done, there are a set of disciplines that are used to interpret and apply scripture.

 

[SkyWriting]

The quotes are from a previous user offering advice on how to tell if "God" has spoken to you.

God only speaks to me through answered prayer. Meaning, He changes my enviornment in answer to prayer. This is usually for the benefit of somebody else, but just for me on occasion. And the answer is usually much bigger than what I had in mind when praying.

 

[berachah]

This is called "Confirmation bias" (Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). We have a tendency to notice patterns or information when we want to confirm our own preconceptions.

You forget that many Christians were once non believers. The ways of God are directly opposite to the ways of the non believing man and it does not change after receiving the Holy Spirit. God continually confounds the thoughts and ideas of even mature Christians so to suggest we want to confirm our own preconceptions is not true at all.

Is this serious? This certainly opens the floodgates of interpretation and messages. Some people have horrifying dreams...

Dreams find their source in the spiritual realm; either from God or the demonic realm. Invariably those that have 'nightmares' have yielded to demonic activity in some way. (generally, but not exclusively, through what they watch, read or listen to) When God ministers through dreams there is usually a message, (often prophetic in nature) a warning or even a correction.

I'm not sure what you mean. You can tell "god" has spoken to you because of scripture?

In many instances, when asking God for help in a decision or other leading one can be reminded of a scripture,which often contains a very precise answer.

Can you tell me, in more detail, what the "holy spirit" is? I think there should be a better way to translate religious terminology into secular terminology and visa versa. How do you have confirmation of the "holy spirit"?

Picture the cartoon where the guy has an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other. The angel is the Holy Spirit. The more time we spend in prayer and in the word of God, the clearer the word of the Holy Spirit becomes. The more time we spend focused on the things of this world, the fainter the word and will of the Holy Spirit becomes. Many Christians make no effort to get close to God and so the evidence of the walk in life is hardly changed.

 

[SkyWriting]

Dreams find their source in the spiritual realm; either from God or the demonic realm. Invariably those that have 'nightmares' have yielded to demonic activity in some way. (generally, but not exclusively, through what they watch, read or listen to) When God ministers through dreams there is usually a message, (often prophetic in nature) a warning or even a correction.

I don't think that's accurate. The workings of the subconsciousness mind are amazing, but for me, I've never noticed any spiritual connection. When my air conditioner makes a droning noise, the noise gets worked into my dreams as some kind of background noise. As do urges to get up and get a drink of water. My dreams seem to be connected to the environment plus other random events in my life. Or just plain fiction. Anyway, I've never noticed any influence from either of your stated realms. I doubt my ability to create fascinating movie scenes in my dreams is from Satan. Unless God is telling me I should be a movie director.

 

[rpeg]

Trust me, it doesn't take long and is worth the read. http://www.stevesisler.org/?p=308

I believe this debate/discussion is unravelling by the fact that many of your terms are not clearly defined and this story you're throwing at me... I'm not sure what i'm supposed to get from it. Can you elaborate on the point of that story? It's about a man who claims a "god" sent him a message to tell a woman she's too fat. Okay. And?

 

[floydsayz]

For what its worth I'd like to put my two cents in this conversation. I did not read every thing everyone said but I haer God when he speaks to me. It's not this loud voice coming from the heavens,but a small voice in my head. It's in my voice so I need to pay close attention to it. The sheep know their shepards voice. But just like gods voice is in my head so is my own and satins voice is there too. So my advice if you want to learn to recognize Gods voice pray and listen

 

[rpeg]

Let's simplify this dialog. There are many cooks in the kitchen now. I don't mean to skip every point or question made but I think we should put some minor matters aside and focus on the larger point.


Hakan101 has been kind enough to have a back and forth and so I am focusing on their claims of how to know if a "god" has spoken with them. Of course it seems their way is not the only way (which poses other questions... we should ignore for now).

Regarind the matter of me focusing on "feeling" as your suggested way of deciphering a message from a "god". I don't mean to say that's your only way to get a message. The point I wanted to make is that "feelings" should not be included at all.

Why shouldn't they? Because as much as you think getting other theists to confirm if someone is speaking to a "god" or if they're delusional, the fact is that human beings can be very delusional and very emotional -- including groups of people! So feelings should never used to measure fact even if other factors are involved. We as humans need better ways of deciphering information in spite of our emotions.

So, I fear that this claim of a "holy spirit" is honestly a state of mind. A state of mind you have given the title of "holy spirit".

Regarding another one of my points about how this system opens the doors for others to confirm they've spoken to other gods. You very casually dismissed my Vishnu example saying you've never heard of such things. First of all, I'm certain you understood my larger point. I think you should address it. Your system of discerning communique from a "god" can apply to many other spiritual systems out there. Don't you think this is a critical problem?