Do you talk to GOD?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by sculptor, Oct 6, 2021.

  1. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,698
    Well there is a opportunity for a thread

    Do you talk to moderators? Followed by Define "moderator"

    Followed by a Paul Hogan "That's not a moderator"

    Until the apparently inevitable bun fight with the original post being ignored

    Thought bubble - is not the current bun fight off topic? Any reason why not in the Private Message facility?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    In which case it must be of my own brain's making. But of course, hallucinations are also in this category.
    How can a neurological activity be "something else" than mental?
    I make that statement because it's true: you can't actually think a thing into existence.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,153
    Okay, so:

    J: Talking to God tends to be a one-way conversation, unless one is hallucinating, schizophrenic or similar.

    T: Are you speaking from personal experience?

    J: Among other lines of evidence, yes.

    T: What were you actually expecting?

    J: Regarding what?

    T: When talking to God.

    B: You were asking him if he suffered from a mental illness.

    Could you please explain how that works?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,755
    Quite a few people in Tibet would disagree with that.

    Tulpa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Thoughtform of the Music of Gounod, according to Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater in Thought-Forms (1901)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2021
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,723
    Quite a few people believe in Bigfoot, too.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,755
    I don't think Bigfoot can be classified as a Tulpa.

    What is a tulpa?
    https://www.tulpa.info/what-is-a-tulpa/

    Is it possible that what most people call talking to God, they are talking to a tulpa of their own making?
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2021
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,133
    Sure...

    And this is after he said he had become an athiest and did not talk to God.

    That was and is how that comes across. That exchange is how I know you were pushing for a fight. Having yet another go.

    You invented your latest outrage. What you conveniently left out of that exchange is how you then went on to flame him for several posts about comments from years ago. And then you actually tried to claim that you tried to talk bout the thread topic, etc.. But he refused to play.. Gee, I wonder why he would have refused, Tiassa? He probably saw you coming a mile away, because you aren't that subtle. You ask how that works? Here it is again:

    You never intended to discuss the "topic". Don't forget, you provided your own answer about God and your apathy. You spent the better part of this thread flaming. Then you had the temerity to report for the sake of record.. Because you need that attention and you crave that fight. You were wrong. There was no fallacy. There was only you, doing "you" things.

    I'm done with this discussion.
     
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,133
    No. I can see where this is going. The answer is no.
     
  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,320
  13. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,025
    ''I make that statement because it's true: you can't actually think a thing into existence.''
    Okay, you're saying your ''it'' experiences could be '' hallucinations'', but you're hoping or having faith their not.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2021
  14. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,025
    ''Off topic'' These Olympians have decreed otherwise.
    Watch your step here, there are thunderbolts flying thick and fast.
     
  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,698
    Good advice
    Takes off tin foil hat
    Heads down mountain
    Finds a Faraday cage
    Will from now sit this quibble out and focus on finding myself

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    with a bit of light music

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    and dash of comedy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    foghorn likes this.
  16. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,025
    I wasn't telling you you're ''off topic'', I just quoted the part of your post I was replying to.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,698
    I understood that thanks
    None the less the moderators -
    the erupting volcano word smith who never lets a chance to pen 20 words when two would suffice
    the stready as she goes and
    the let's calm down scribe
    have they not only lost the plot they have put it down the grinder in the sink and flushed it away

    Not only was god not defined (surprise surprise church has been at it for over 2,000 years and no clear unambiguous definition has been forthcoming) but the questioner was off to a bad start stating

    Perhaps that might have been the moment to shut the thread down

    Answers should have been YES or NO with perhaps a small explanation follow up

    That didn't happen

    Sad it became train wreak of, off topic squabbling moderators

    Not sure WHY such a question was asked but squabbling about who said what and their motive for doing so does not auger well for the questioner to obtain a decent answer

    For my 2 cents. NO I don't talk (pick any version of talk you want) I don't in any talk version to any god version

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,320
    Was that unexpected?
     
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,698
    YES since the subject (question) has numerous easy answers and nothing I read required comments about staff members of the forum

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,692
    Why do you say that? Is it that he said "most"? Or do you think that it is simply not possible that anyone might mistake a tulpa for God? And if so, on what basis would you make that assertion?
    Also, what if Write4U was referring only to those who actually hold two-way conversations, rather than those who merely hold a one-way conversation? Or is that included in your "no"?
     
  21. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,305
    there is also a new branch of evangelical new age Christianity who believe that to be true
    whom preach & practice it.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,376
    Perhaps I can help clarify a few points - not for Tiassa's benefit, since I have no further interest in his shenanigans, but for any other readers who might imagine that Tiassa had some kind of point buried amongst the insults and lies.
    When I was a Christian, I talked to God in what other Christians tell me confidently are the correct and appropriate ways to go about that. That is, I attended church services. I prayed to God, both in communal settings and in private. I reached out silently to God, believing - as I was taught - that the Christian God is a loving God who watches over his Creation and cares about his People, of which - obviously - I was one.

    God never talked back to me. I never heard a single word that I could ascribe unambiguously to God. But that didn't matter all that much. Like other believers, I was happy to ascribe certain good things in my life to the assistance and watchful care of God. When shit happened - as shit tends to do - I didn't think it was God's fault. I could think of lots of reasons why God couldn't - or wouldn't - control everything or prevent evil. I was taught - or I read about - all the usual excuses that religions make. Sometimes I would blame myself for some of the shit, and feel the usual Christian guilt for failing to live up to the standards that I was taught that God expected of me. In short, it was easy for a smart person like myself to make excuses for God and to rationalise reasons why a loving God would let evil happen, specifically or in general.

    What I actually expected from talking (praying, etc.) to God, was that God would love me and care about me, and that His Holy concern would be manifest in many different ways in my life, albeit never unambiguous ways because - you know - God works in mysterious ways (and other excuses).

    So, lacking the kind of mental illness I mentioned, I never had a two-way conversation with God, in which God would talk back to me in a way that could only be put down to his Holy Supernatural Magnificence etc. And, consistently, I have found that the sorts of people who do claim that God talks back to them - that they directly hear the voice of God, or that God speaks direct messages to them in their heads, are mentally ill, to a lesser or greater extent. Here, we also touch on one of the "other lines of evidence" I mentioned. Specifically, people who claim to talk directly to God (in a two-way conversation as if with a regular, albeit invisible, person) tend to have mental health issues that are diagnosable by the appropriate health professionals.

    Now, obviously I say this expecting the usual bullshit rejoinders from the Faithful: that I was never a "proper" Christian; that I never "truly" believed, or I never believed strongly enough; that I never did the prayer thing "properly"; that my expectations of God were unreasonable; that God is not to be "tested" and I was trying to test Him; that God did answer me but I failed to interpret the "signs" correctly; etc. etc. In other words, I expect the response from believers that it's my fault that God never talked to me, or alternatively that I never "heard" his answers. No doubt there will also be a few people chiming in to assure me that God talks to them because they know how to conduct the conversation properly, lacking all the failings I so obviously have/had. And, of course, I will be accused of being bitter and resentful towards God, and that will be one of the excuses given for why I became an atheist. Previously, a theist here asserted over and over that I was always deficient, from the start, and "without God" - that I never did the God thing "properly" because I am innately incapable of knowing God - a born atheist who deluded himself for a while. I'm sure others will be quite happy to jump on that bandwagon.

    It is strange that us atheists get all the attention around here because of what we aren't doing. On the contrary, we hear very little from all the devout people who are convinced that they do talk to God regularly, and he regularly "answers" them. I'd say our resident theists must lack confidence for some reason, compared to their co-religionists, because the theists here have so little they are willing tell us about their Gods. In contrast, outside of this forum, I see no shortage of people willing to preach various gospels and to loudly express their complete confidence in their Gods and in the Gods' willingness to intervene in their lives (and in the lives of everybody else). Outside of this forum, Gods are usually advertised on the basis that believing in them is supposed to bring a host of benefits to one's life, both externally and internally. But here, theists hide their beliefs away in a tiny package, no doubt to protect those fragile flowers.

    Theists here have always run away from what ought to be simple questions, like "What does your God want?" and "What does your God do in the world?" I have no doubt that will continue. In an effort to present as small a target as possible, the theists here end up standing up for very little.
     
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2021
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,153
    A note at the outset; we'll start here:

    Honestly, I wish getting paragraphs like these wasn't so much like pulling teeth; these are the paragraphs that help people understand what you're talking about. And, yes, the polymer generality about your descriptions leaves all sorts of question marks¹, but in our moment, yes, this is actually useful information. Indeed, it points us back toward what I describe as your idol, or the God you need. And toward that, please consider that your inquiries about four notions of talking to God make a great deal of sense in the context of the Christendom you describe, but the answers attend different ideas of divinity that work in different ways, and thus the question of talking to God has different meaning.

    To a certain degree, it depends on the witch; most don't have an actual goddess idol, as far as I know, but there are a few really classic ones to pick from, so, sure, one can easily find comfort in objects of art. The Goddess is the moon, the Hunter is the Sun, and one can, if so inclined, see the pentacle as a symbol of their joining.

    But how does it work, talking to the Goddess?

    Like I said over a decade ago↗, I could easily claim I've been in the presence of divinity, but I also think it's important to consider what those experiences were. You'll find postgarnderian Craft doesn't tend toward the balbutive, postchristianistic pseudoliteralism you're so anxious to tack to the shed.

    While it is possible to find that kind of believer among Wiccans and associated pagans, it's not normal. That is, you'll also find a lot of postgardnerian Craft is very deliberate, so it doesn't quite work like your disdain expects.² One can ask the Goddess, or try to demand, but for the most part spells and other such utterances are considered acts of will, a witch's own pronouncements unto the world. In literature and among covens, it is easy to build ritual, but after working with the symbols enough, many regard the rituals and even the Goddess as symbols.

    Generally speaking, if the Goddess talks back to you, it's important to consider what those experiences are. Dreams? Psychedelia? Yes, that makes perfect sense. Many people find extraordinary significance in dreams, and psychedelic pursuit of spirituality is an old, old practice.

    Regardless of whether She talks back, how does one know there is something in the Goddess that is not oneself? It's postgardnerian witchcraft in the age of the Spiral Dance, so pretty much everything about it is self.

    But, for the most part, witches don't weep and cower and grovel and beg the Goddess. It's generally not helpful. This is, of course, a different relationship between the faithful and divine than we see in Christianity. In certain ways, it is supposed to be; to the other, there are reasons why postgardnerian witchcraft is not an uncommon waypoint for people falling away from their Christian experience.

    To answer each in turn: Not quite, and that's not how it works.

    More usefully, it's not some question of what "counts" as talking to God; rather, it's an argumentative outcome. Remember, monotheism into panentheism. To reiterate: The thing is, what makes it talking to God or not is entirely up to the individual. Inasmuch as you find this notion of God not very useful, I really do wish you would pick up on the obvious implication, whereupon it can become very useful to you.

    But in the moment, the simple part is that true monotheism requires panentheism, at which point, simply talking means your words are encountering the godhead. It's not a matter of what counts as talking to God, but a result of panentheism.³ In this case, it is for each entirely their own whether they think of it as talking to God. But, here again, we're considering something other than the object of your inquisition, and this time the implication regarding the question of whether God is listening is to observe the answer is as inherently affirmative as it is irrelevant.

    It's part of a doctrinal dispute said to have resulted in schism, and it probably did, right up there with the drinking and gambling and insubordination and subversion.

    But a question about The One being incarnate is pretty straightforward: What happens to God when that mortal vessel achieves mortality? Since in this doctrine, God is not some distal mystery, one logical consequence jolts toward a weird sort of anthropological entheism.⁴ Actually, because of particular sexism preceding a proposition of revolutionary labor division, it becomes manentheism. Inasmuch as men and women are both divine in their particular ways, and men claimed The One, yes, if I happen to know one of these, I can call God on the phone, or even go over to his house, and ask him if he wants to go get a drink, or play cards, or something. And even though I'm not especially fluent in the language, it's not nearly so incomprehensible as Angelic.

    And, actually, to get ahead of ourselves a little, yes, God talks to himself a lot. And talks back.

    But neither will he waste his time answering for your idol; that part is too obvious. Your manner of inquiry about God talks about something else. Generally speaking, as these people describe their corner of a religion as not being a religion, but, rather, a way of life, the theology is more dynamic than your inquiry generally permits. It's not quite mostly harmless, but its main purpose is something else, which only gets complicated.

    And part of me says it should be number four, but it's true, I had to remember that one later, so:

    Well, that's the tricky part, isn't it?

    This one is nearly as useful as panentheism.

    Think of polishing the mirror like a trick question; try it this way: Polish the mirror until you can see what cannot be seen. And while that might make certain sense in physics, this is theology. For instance, you already know that the monotheistic godhead cannot be directly countenanced. So, just think it through, for a minute.

    Has it occurred to you that one can polish the mirror until there is nothing left? If you see nothing in the reflection because you have scrubbed it all away, I cannot promise that is the wrong answer.

    That is to say, there is a possibility that when you talk to God in this context, you are talking to nothing at all. It's like pursuing Zen; it's also threaded through that mysterious futility about Jesus' ministry if we read him according to the nihilism of a pissy revolutionary bastard.

    And in the strangest of ways, there it is. I mean, none of this is new, so if there is a lot that goes here, much of it is review. But please observe a basic comparison, that a certain amount of what does or doesn't make sense to you about what I'm saying depends entirely on hewing to your inquisition against a mysterious but generally Christianist theology.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    ¹ The diversity of what certain generalizations can mean within Christianity leaves your descriptions vague enough that, while we can generally grasp what you're after, there isn't much to be said for specific response because it remains unclear what some things mean; e.g., doing the "God thing 'properly'" can have any number of meanings.

    ² There is a line that can go here, having to do with Anarchism, and for our purposes, if the Craft seeks to transform the dominion of the human mind, as such, it is not a direct response to Goldman, but, rather, an easy enough coincidence between revolutionary pretenses of history and divinity.

    ³ Yes, there is the part about God being essentially and integrally omnipresent meaning mere thought encounters the godhead, but we can skip that one, for the moment, because it's both messy and extraneous.

    ⁴ Don't start; the actual doctrine remains inchoate, so just roll with it.

    [(cont.)]
     

Share This Page