Communication With The Creator...

[William]

William: There is a thread in the C&A forum asking "Why is communication with God one way?" and is focused the idea that a Creator - whichever idea about that one adopts as belief - is specifically a silent observer in the affairs of humanity, and does not commune with the individual.

The focus of that thread is, of course, to do with the general Christian idea of a Creator...that one normally going by the name/title of "God".

In that, the dependency is on The Bible, as this set of stories is normally believed by most Christians to be "The Word of God" and therein, the God of The Christians communicates to the individual through said books - bound as they are into one overall book.

The book therefore becomes the 'steering mechanism' of the individual Christian 'ship' sailing through their life experience, who believes it to be so.

Which is to say, even if the individual might think that they are in a two-way communion with the God, anything which contradicts The Bible, has to be discarded as a devilish deception, for the simplistic reason that 'it is not in The Bible' because The Bible is taught to Christians as being "the Word of their God".

Therefore, all Christians who are captured under the influence of this belief, are effectively unable to have and build upon any actual relationship with The Creator, because they depend upon the Medium of The Bible and this effectively cuts them off from a two-way communication with any actual intelligent entity, including The Father.

While some might argue that they do indeed have a two way communion with The Father through The Son, their communion with The Son is also achieved through the medium of The Bible...first and foremost, so their dependency upon having a connection at all, amounts to dependency upon The Bible.

This amounts to having a relationship with a book which cannot truthfully be said to be the same thing as having a relationship with The Father.

Indeed, much of the confusion has to derive from the fact that within said book, are written words attributed to Jesus...who among other things states that HE is "The Word of God" - a big clue right there as to what Christians are doing incorrectly when they refer to The Bible as 'The Word Of God' - and this misleading idea that The Bible can bring an individual closer to The Creator becomes the substitute, as they mistakenly think that The Bible is the medium between The Father and the individual.

And all that is achieved is that those who practice such, are not really having a relationship with any living entity. They are simply having relationship with a book and claiming this as the same thing as having a Relationship with The Creator.

[Divine Insight]

The problem I see with your comments is that they appear to be nothing more than your own personal perceptions of how you imagine that other people might think of, or related to, what they believe to be God.

When reading your comments the first thing disagreed with is the following:

The focus of that thread is, of course, to do with the general Christian idea of a Creator...that one normally going by the name/title of "God".

The Christian idea of "God" is certainly not the only idea of "God". Other religions and mystical views of reality refer to their god as "God" too. In fact, the term "God" isn't even a name. It's typically capitalized, not because it's a proper name, but simply because it's supposed to be referring to the creator of all reality, and therefore deserves to be capitalized. At least this is how many people think of it. I don't think too many people think of "God" as a proper name. But they probably do consider their god to be the only "God".

And all that is achieved is that those who practice such, are not really having a relationship with any living entity. They are simply having relationship with a book and claiming this as the same thing as having a Relationship with The Creator.

To begin with I doubt that there are many Christians who view their God in the way you have suggested. I'm quite sure that some do, but they are most likely in the minority.

Most Christians believe that they are in direct commune with their God, and that he speaks to them through their feelings as well as through the thoughts that pop into their minds. So they see this as a direct communication and not just following what was written in some book.

Believing that the text of the book is true does not mean that they cannot also have a direct communication with their God.

They believe that their feelings, intuition, and even their thoughts are being directed by God. So it's not even necessary for them to hear any voices. They are just sure that God is guiding them by how they feel about what they are doing. If it feels right then God approves, and if it doesn't feel right then clearly God is communicating his disapproval.

Secularists see their thoughts and feelings as being their own. But the religious have convinced themselves that their thoughts and feelings are coming from God. So as far as they are concerned they are in direct communication with the creator.

In fact, how would you define communication with the creator?

Do you have direct intelligible two-way conversations with a supernatural entity?

If not, then how do you have a relationship with an invisible unseen creator?

It would seem to me that you'd have nothing more to go on than a secularist. All you can go by is your thoughts, feelings, and how well you might believe you are in harmony with the rest of the world. But a secularist can do all that too. There's really no need to bring the idea of a creator God into the picture at all.

In response to your discussion topic: Communication With The Creator...

As far as I'm concerned any creator who could create the entire universe including me should be able to communicate with me in a direct and unambiguous way, leaving no doubt in my mind that I had been communicated to by a "God". Since this has never happened in my entire life I see no reason to believe that any "God" who is capable of communicating with humans exists.

[William]

[Replying to post 2 by ]

Divine Insight: The problem I see with your comments is that they appear to be nothing more than your own personal perceptions of how you imagine that other people might think of, or related to, what they believe to be God.

William: Essentially that is a general problem we all have when using the word 'God', even that I mentioned marco's thread in C&A. He did not think there was a need to tell us what he meant by using the word 'God' and quite rightly. It is a nit-pic.

Divine Insight: Most Christians believe that they are in direct commune with their God, and that he speaks to them through their feelings as well as through the thoughts that pop into their minds. So they see this as a direct communication and not just following what was written in some book.

William: Fortunately I was clear specifically speaking to a two-way communication process, and that Christians generally run anything they think about, through the medium of The Bible.
The evidence does strongly suggest in favor of the majority of Christians processing through that practice, even going by the comments of Christians on this Message Board...their adherence to the idea that The Buck Stops At The Bible, is pretty incontrovertible. They even have a special forum where that is The Rule and The Bible is The Overarching Authority.


Divine Insight: As far as I'm concerned any creator who could create the entire universe including me should be able to communicate with me in a direct and unambiguous way, leaving no doubt in my mind that I had been communicated to by a "God". Since this has never happened in my entire life I see no reason to believe that any "God" who is capable of communicating with humans exists.

William: While I do appreciate you declaration therein, so what? What point are you trying to make? What relevance does your declaration have on the discussion?

[Divine Insight]

William: Essentially that is a general problem we all have when using the word 'God', even that I mentioned marco's thread in C&A. He did not think there was a need to tell us what he meant by using the word 'God' and quite rightly. It is a nit-pic.

Why would you feel a need to tell anyone what you mean by 'God' in the Christianity & Apologetics forum? It should be clear from the subject matter of the forum which God you are talking about.

William: Fortunately I was clear specifically speaking to a two-way communication process, and that Christians generally run anything they think about, through the medium of The Bible.
The evidence does strongly suggest in favor of the majority of Christians processing through that practice, even going by the comments of Christians on this Message Board...their adherence to the idea that The Buck Stops At The Bible, is pretty incontrovertible. They even have a special forum where that is The Rule and The Bible is The Overarching Authority.

Of course they would do that on a debate forum. Personal feelings aren't considered meaningful on the debate forum. So they are pretty much stuck with having to debate the doctrines.

But you seem to be suggesting that because they are restricted to this on the forums that this means this is how the actually think in real life. That's most likely a misconception on your part.

Divine Insight: As far as I'm concerned any creator who could create the entire universe including me should be able to communicate with me in a direct and unambiguous way, leaving no doubt in my mind that I had been communicated to by a "God". Since this has never happened in my entire life I see no reason to believe that any "God" who is capable of communicating with humans exists.

William: While I do appreciate you declaration therein, so what? What point are you trying to make? What relevance does your declaration have on the discussion?

This is the General Chat forum right?

So I'm just offering my views on what it would mean to communicate with a Creator.

And prior to that my comments about your position were not meant to challenge you but simply meant to show you why I feel your perceptions of Christians do not reflect reality.

In fact, you appear to be jumping to conclusions about how Christians might think based on the arguments they give on the C&A forum. But that's probably far from how they actually think. It's not going to do them any good on the C&A forum to say that they simply 'feel' that they have a connection with God. Although they often say this anyway. It's just instantly brushed aside by those debating against Christian Apologetics as being meaningless and uncompelling.

After all, keep in mind that the purpose of Christian Apologetics is basically to argue that belief in the Bible as being representative of the Christian God is reasonable. Going off on a tangent to proclaim that someone has "good feelings" about believing in a God really has nothing to do with Christian Apologetics.

I do have some questions for you. Since we are just having a General Chat here.

What would you consider to be communication with a creator?

And do you feel that you are in communication with a creator?


I gave you my thoughts on this. And all you had to say about that was:

William: While I do appreciate you declaration therein, so what? What point are you trying to make? What relevance does your declaration have on the discussion?

I wasn't trying to make any point. I was just sharing my views on this discussion topic that you started. Although it's unclear exactly what you would like to discuss?

Did you want to discuss idea of what it would mean to communicate with a creator? Or were you just ranting about how you think Christians aren't in communication with God?

I would like to hear your ideas on what you think it would mean to communicate with a creator, and whether you feel that you are in communication with a creator? Perhaps you could share your thoughts on what is required to be in communication with a creator and how a person could know for sure?

That would be quite informative.

[William]

[Replying to post 4 by ]

Divine Insight: Why would you feel a need to tell anyone what you mean by 'God' in the Christianity & Apologetics forum? It should be clear from the subject matter of the forum which God you are talking about.

William: As I pointed out, I referred to a specific thread marco created in the C&A forum.


Divine Insight: Of course they would do that on a debate forum. Personal feelings aren't considered meaningful on the debate forum. So they are pretty much stuck with having to debate the doctrines.

William: What has that argument got to do with this thread in the General Chat forum?
Are you suggesting that if those Christians had the opportunity to discuss the subject outside of debate, that they would jump on it?
If that were a mis-conception on my part (which it isn't or I wouldn't have bothered)
the proof should be in the pudding.

All are free to defend their position on any matter, or not. They are not bound only to do so in a debate setting.

Divine Insight: As far as I'm concerned any creator who could create the entire universe including me should be able to communicate with me in a direct and unambiguous way, leaving no doubt in my mind that I had been communicated to by a "God". Since this has never happened in my entire life I see no reason to believe that any "God" who is capable of communicating with humans exists.

William: While I do appreciate you declaration therein, so what? What point are you trying to make? What relevance does your declaration have on the discussion?

Divine Insight: This is the General Chat forum right?

William: I have not said it isn't, right :k

Divine Insight: This is the General Chat forum right?

William: I have not said it isn't, now have I. . I simply asked you a question, thinking you might like to offer up an answer.

Divine Insight: So I'm just offering my views on what it would mean to communicate with a Creator.

William: And I am asking you to explain why your declaration is relevant to the subject.
Christians are free to contribute or ignore as they will. If they ignore, then I don't see that your opinion of how Christians appear to think has anything to do with the subject of two way communication with the creator through the medium of The Bible.

If you believe that the majority of Christians do not commune with their God primarily through The Bible as their medium, perhaps you can show us actual evidence to support your belief.

Divine Insight: What would you consider to be communication with a creator?

William: What do you mean by 'The Creator'?
Are you meaning what Christians mean, or do you have another meaning?
Otherwise, how are we to discuss this, if your questions about it are not defined?

You could start by telling us what you mean when you declared;

Divine Insight:

• As far as I'm concerned any creator who could create the entire universe including me should be able to communicate with me in a direct and unambiguous way, leaving no doubt in my mind that I had been communicated to by a "God". Since this has never happened in my entire life I see no reason to believe that any "God" who is capable of communicating with humans exists.

William: What did you consider to be "communication with a creator"? when you wrote that.

You must have some idea, for apparently it did not happen with you. And you felt the need to say so in this chat thread.

Can you tell us?

[Divine Insight]

And I am asking you to explain why your declaration is relevant to the subject.

My deepest apologies William. I thought you wanted to chat about "Communication with a Creator".

I didn't realize that your intent was to accuse Christians of not being in direct communication with their God.

Sorry I misunderstood the intent of your thread. But then again, to be honest, it did appear to be a rant against Christians from the get go. I guess I gave the benefit of the doubt where none was warranted.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Please carry on.

[William]

[Replying to post 6 ]

Divine Insight: My deepest apologies William. I thought you wanted to chat about "Communication with a Creator".

William: Indeed, that is why I asked you for details about your proclamation DI.

You stated;

• As far as I'm concerned any creator who could create the entire universe including me should be able to communicate with me in a direct and unambiguous way, leaving no doubt in my mind that I had been communicated to by a "God". Since this has never happened in my entire life I see no reason to believe that any "God" who is capable of communicating with humans exists.

and I replied;

• What did you consider to be "communication with a creator" when you wrote that?
  
  You must have some idea, for apparently it did not happen with you. And you felt the need to say so in this chat thread.
  
  Can you tell us?

So indeed, that is an invitation for chat about "Communication with a Creator".

Divine Insight: I didn't realize that your intent was to accuse Christians of not being in direct communication with their God.

William: That is because that wasn't my intent. That was your initial response - accusing me of misrepresenting Christians in general. It appeared to be that your intent was to steer the focus of the thread in that direction.


Divine Insight:Sorry I misunderstood the intent of your thread. But then again, to be honest, it did appear to be a rant against Christians from the get go. I guess I gave the benefit of the doubt where none was warranted.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Please carry on.

William: So your declaration was pointless as it was meaningless. So what? You tried and failed.
How is that our business, when what you tried and why you failed in relation to two-way communication with a Creator, you do not say. How is your declaration somehow evidence for us, that a Creator does not exist?

[Divine Insight]

How is your declaration somehow evidence for us, that a Creator does not exist?

It's was never intended to be evidence. General Chat is not a debate forum. I was simply offering my views on "Communication with a Creator".

I know that my desire to communicate with any Creator that might exist is sincere. Therefore if the Creator is also sincere and capable of communication I see no reason why it wouldn't. Since this has never happened, the most rational conclusion is that the Creator either does not exist, or is incapable of communication. Those are just the most logical conclusions to be had.

Of course, we could speculate that the Creator is simply insincere or has other reasons why it won't communicate with sincere humans. But this then becomes an endless pit of apologetic hypotheses for why there's no evidence for such an imaginary being. Hardly a productive path to take, IMHO.

What did you consider to be "communication with a creator" when you wrote that?

You must have some idea, for apparently it did not happen with you. And you felt the need to say so in this chat thread.

Can you tell us?

I consider communication of any kind to be the exchange of intelligible information. I have never experienced the exchange of intelligible information with any invisible supernatural entities or aliens.

You started this general chat and I have asked you for your thoughts on the subject. So do you have any thoughts on what communication with a Creator would mean? And have you ever experienced communication with the Creator based on your definition of it?

[William]

[Replying to post 8]

William: How is your declaration somehow evidence for us, that a Creator does not exist?

Divine Insight: It's was never intended to be evidence. General Chat is not a debate forum. I was simply offering my views on "Communication with a Creator".

William: As I am also offering my views on techniques of Communication.
I started with my own knowledge base and experience re How Christians are generally taught re The Bible in relation to it being called "The Word of God" which specifically implies that The Bible is God's part of the 2-way conversation.

I have tried that method and found it to be wanting. It didn't deliver.
Before I decided that this signified that it is reason to believe that the idea of a Creator who is capable of communicating, but doesn't - therefore requires some kind of Judgement from me - I decided to test out other ways, which Jesus is attributed with advising.

I was further enabled to do this by the idea that it is Jesus who is attributed with saying that he is "The Word of God" - as is written in The Bible - so thought perhaps that by not confusing the two mediums as being one and the same, I should look deeper into it...and not even refer at all to The Bible as being "The Word of God".

That allowed for a different - and as it proved to be for me - far more rewarding trajectory...

Divine Insight: I know that my desire to communicate with any Creator that might exist is sincere. Therefore if the Creator is also sincere and capable of communication I see no reason why it wouldn't. Since this has never happened, the most rational conclusion is that the Creator either does not exist, or is incapable of communication. Those are just the most logical conclusions to be had.

William: The reasoning I placed on things, allowed me to traverse a different path from your own, and no doubt just as sincerely.

Divine Insight: Of course, we could speculate that the Creator is simply insincere or has other reasons why it won't communicate with sincere humans. But this then becomes an endless pit of apologetic hypotheses for why there's no evidence for such an imaginary being. Hardly a productive path to take, IMHO.

William: Opinion noted.
I sincerely chose another way, and it worked out altogether to be evidence pointing to the conclusion that a Creator Mind exists.
In order for others to peer review the evidence, they must sincerely want to do so.
But even if none want to sincerely make such effort, it cannot be said that they are not being sincere in that. But so what? Being sincerely disinterested is beside the point really. It means nothing in and of itself. IMHO.

What did you consider to be "communication with a creator" when you wrote that declaration?

You must have some idea, for apparently it did not happen with you. And you felt the need to say so in this chat thread.

Can you tell us?

Divine Insight: I consider communication of any kind to be the exchange of intelligible information.

William: It's a start, one would suppose.
There is a lot of that going on but it does not in itself build any 2-way communication which seems satisfactory to any involved.
So one would want to expand that to include aspects helpful to the result of a healthy mutually beneficial interaction between parties. It has to be more than simply 'exchange of intelligible information'. The information has to be solid and dependable.
Real and purposeful for me to accept it as "Intercommunication between "I Am" The Individual and "I Am" The Creator.

Divine Insight: I have never experienced the exchange of intelligible information with any invisible supernatural entities or aliens.

William: Whereas - if we can agree to call them that - I have. But how would that of itself be "2way communication with a Creator" unless it is also agreed that there may be many creators?

The steps I took, being no less sincere as your own, were on a different trajectory and thus had different outcomes - at least , up to this point...

Divine Insight: You started this general chat and I have asked you for your thoughts on the subject. So do you have any thoughts on what communication with a Creator would mean? And have you ever experienced communication with the Creator based on your definition of it?

William: Yes. I have plenty. I am interested in sharing these with those who show themselves as sincerely interested. Are you one of those?
Perhaps you are.

[Divine Insight]

I started with my own knowledge base and experience re How Christians are generally taught re The Bible in relation to it being called "The Word of God" which specifically implies that The Bible is God's part of the 2-way conversation.

Exactly. The only problem is that this is actually 1-way communication. It requires faith-based belief that the words we are reading actually speak for a God.

I have tried that method and found it to be wanting. It didn't deliver.

My conclusions as well.

Before I decided that this signified that it is reason to believe that the idea of a Creator who is capable of communicating, but doesn't - therefore requires some kind of Judgement from me - I decided to test out other ways, which Jesus is attributed with advising.

I was further enabled to do this by the idea that it is Jesus who is attributed with saying that he is "The Word of God" - as is written in The Bible - so thought perhaps that by not confusing the two mediums as being one and the same, I should look deeper into it...and not even refer at all to The Bible as being "The Word of God".

That allowed for a different - and as it proved to be for me - far more rewarding trajectory...

But how did this change anything? You would still need to go by the Bible as being the "Words of Jesus". I don't see where anything has changed. It would still be just a 1-way communication and you would still need to place your faith in the idea that words attributed to Jesus were words that Jesus had actually spoken at some point.

So I don't see where this is any different from accepting that the OT are the words of God. It sounds to me like all you've done is decide that you would rather believer that the NT are the words of Jesus. It also implies that the words attributed to the God of the OT were not the least bit compelling.

The reasoning I placed on things, allowed me to traverse a different path from your own, and no doubt just as sincerely.

I would never think to question your sincerity.

I sincerely chose another way, and it worked out altogether to be evidence pointing to the conclusion that a Creator Mind exists.

So are you then saying that you do indeed feel that you are in communication with a Creator Mind?

In order for others to peer review the evidence, they must sincerely want to do so.

I don't see a problem with that. But I also haven't seen any evidence offered up to be peer reviewed. It's quite difficult to review evidence that has never been presented.

The information has to be solid and dependable. Real and purposeful for me to accept it as "Intercommunication between "I Am" The Individual and "I Am" The Creator.

Agreed. However, thus far I haven't seen anyone produce any evidence of ever having had such communications with any so-called "I Am" the Creator.

I have never experienced the exchange of intelligible information with any invisible supernatural entities or aliens.

Whereas - if we can agree to call them that - I have. But how would that of itself be "2way communication with a Creator" unless it is also agreed that there may be many creators?

Ok, so you now claim that you have had communication with supernatural entities. How can you be certain that this isn't your own imagination?

Why would there need to be many creators? Why not a single creator who simply has many different facets?

Also, what would be wrong with there being many creators? If a single creator could exist, why not infinitely many of them?

These aren't meant to challenge your way of thinking. I'm simply curious about how you would answer these questions.

The steps I took, being no less sincere as your own, were on a different trajectory and thus had different outcomes - at least , up to this point...

Again, no one is questioning your sincerity. There is however, the open question of whether you actually communicated with any actual supernatural entities, or whether you have simply imagined to do so. Keep in mind that if your experiences were due to imagination that you had experiences as real events, this wouldn't bring into question your sincerity.

Yes. I have plenty. I am interested in sharing these with those who show themselves as sincerely interested. Are you one of those?
Perhaps you are.

I have spoken with many people who have imagined communicating with various supernatural entities. Gods, fairies, even deceased humans. I have even experienced these kind of imaginary visions myself. There are many techniques used to purposefully induce precisely this state of mind.

So I don't question the power of human imagination. What I look for is compelling evidence that these experiences ever produce any actual communication with any real entities. Thus far I haven't seen any compelling evidence for those types of claims.

One time I had a very convincing Shamanic Journey where I was taken into "heaven". It was a very realistic experience. I felt as though I was actually there conversing with other human spirits. They explained to me many things about heaven. The only problem is that when I came back from that Shamanic Journey I have no way to verify that anything I saw in that vision was real or trustworthy.

You said yourself just moments ago:

The information has to be solid and dependable. Real and purposeful for me to accept it as "Intercommunication between "I Am" The Individual and "I Am" The Creator.

And I agree. The problem is that information about a place such as heaven can never be verified to even exist, much less be shown to be solid and dependable. Therefore a far more reasonable conclusion is that I simply imagined the whole thing myself.

The art of "Shamanic Journeying" or any other technique to enter into this state of mind, is basically the art of learning how to get your brain to enter into a dream state while remaining in a wakened state. In this way you can experience the dream as if it's actually happening for real.

For those of us who do purposeful Shamanic Journeying, we understand that this is what we are doing. However, other people may enter into this awakened dream state quite naturally without understanding that this is what has happened. For those people this experience seem quite real and unintentional. So they can't really be blamed for thinking that these experiences are "real". They are real experiences. They just aren't supernatural as they believe them to be. It's just the brain entering into an awakened dream state.

Since we know that this state of mind does indeed exist, we have no reason to rule it out when people speak about having had so-called "spiritual or supernatural" experiences.

Unless they come back with real information that could not otherwise be obtained there's no reason to think that they had anything other than a waking-state dream. And we just don't see any evidence of people coming back from these experiences with any information they couldn't have already known.