When I heard God’s voice

I still remember the time in 1982 when I realized that I was hearing God speak to me for the first time. It was quite unintentional and surprising. Understand that I wasn’t the type that thought everyone who said they heard God was credible. I was actually quite skeptical at the time.

It happened at a meeting we were attending. It was a small independent Charismatic church plant that my brother-in-law had invited my wife and me to. We had been going for a few weeks at the time and on this particular evening during the worship as I was deep in thought, rocking my newborn son to the music, all of a sudden a lady next to us stood up and gave a prophetic word. Now, that wasn’t what was shocking to my neophyte ears. It was that she was saying, almost verbatim, what I thought I was thinking! I just stared at her. How could this be? At first I thought she must be a mind-reader or have ESP or something crazy like that. I had never experienced anything like that before.

But then it dawned on me. God had been speaking to me and He was using my inner-voice to do so. I don’t think I heard a word the pastor said for the rest of the night. I just sat there pondering what had just happened.

Of course, this shouldn’t have been surprising to me. Even though I was still pretty ignorant about the Bible at the time, I knew enough to know that Jesus said His sheep would hear His voice. Did He really mean this?

The one who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. The doorkeeper opens the door for him, and the sheep hear his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought all his own sheep out, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they recognize his voice. They will never follow a stranger, but will run away from him, because they do not recognize the stranger’s voice.” (John 10:2-5 NET)

I’ve been to Israel a couple of times now and have marveled at how the Bedouin shepherds lovingly work with their sheep. I shared a story here where Jesus’ analogy of sheep only following their shepherd’s voice was actually witnessed by a pastor named Griffiths Thomas.

Back to that night in 1982, this initial encounter was life-changing for me. I had believed in God before, but now He was no longer some distant God of the Bible. I now knew that He knew me personally and was speaking to me, and so I began to want to know Him more intimately. I’ve been on that wondrous adventure ever since. What’s funny is even when I went through a time where I was mad at God and didn’t want to talk to Him, I knew He was there. And He was…listening…patiently waiting.

I have since found out that this is probably the most common way God speaks to us, even though we may not be aware of it. Of course, He can speak to us through the Bible, hearing a message, but He also wants to speak to us personally…if we will just learn how to listen. And He almost always sounds like our inner voice. There are various ways we can distinguish our thoughts from God’s voice to verify it’s Him, but the point here is that He is speaking.

This first encounter was 36 years ago. Since then, God has confirmed Himself to me too many times to count. And I think this is important for us who believe because there are lots of other voices trying to tell us that our faith in this invisible God is a waste of time, and that He’s not real. But, as Bill Johnson put it, “A man who has an encounter is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.” 

I was thinking about this as I watched Dr. Jim Wilder‘s testimony (see video clip below). Dr. Wilder was trained in clinical psychology and specializes in brain science. He’s also a theologian (who calls himself a “Neurotheologian”) and co-author of “Rare Leadership:  4 Uncommon Habits For Increasing Trust, Joy, and Engagement in the People You Lead,” which is a book I highly recommend, by the way. He shares a similar experience on the video that helped him resolve his doubts about God when he was a young adult in college. He also shares some other interesting insights near the end of the video. I think you’ll find the whole thing well worth watching.

Beloved, God is always speaking to you. And He will show you this if you will but open your heart to it and ask.

Advertisements

About Mel Wild

God's favorite (and so are you), a son and a father, happily married to the same beautiful woman for 38 years. We have three incredible adult children. My passion is pursuing the Father's heart in Christ and giving it away to others. My favorite pastime is being iconoclastic and trailblazing the depths of God's grace. I'm also senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in Wisconsin.
This entry was posted in Faith and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

93 Responses to When I heard God’s voice

  1. “A man who has an encounter is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.” so true:)

    • tildeb says:

      Yes, because your interpretation of an experience is the final arbiter and we know you cannot possibly be incorrect. Your faith will not allow it.

      • Mel Wild says:

        Nice “anything but God” hand-waving, Tildeb. Of course, a better explanation is that the other person, and everyone since, were mind-readers (which you would still have to explain from a naturalist point of view), or that we had shared hallucinations, etc. And, as I said, I was skeptical at the time and never even heard of such a thing happening before that. And I always look for verification. But you’re not going to be able to test it under a microscope either.

        Disbelieve whatever you want. It doesn’t change anything.

        • tildeb says:

          When an interpretation involves a fantastic and supernatural explanation, then I think I have reasonable cause to reexamine my interpretation. Is there an explanation that doesn’t involve a fantastic and supernatural requirement? My concern is that this question is never seriously or honestly asked by those who are primed with a faith-based confirmation bias. And that’s a legitimate concern, considering that the same fantastic and supernatural interpretation outside of a religious framing is considered a psychotic event.

        • Mel Wild says:

          When an interpretation involves a fantastic and supernatural explanation, then I think I have reasonable cause to reexamine my interpretation.

          Of course, I would agree with that. Like I said, I don’t assume someone heard from God just because they said so, and I don’t generally appeal to these kinds of experiences to give a rational argument for God. But I think you miss my point. I wasn’t the one saying it was from God at first. I had no idea it was Him at the time. I was an engineering graduate at the time and certainly didn’t get into being flaky. The other person I mentioned, who I never met before and didn’t talk to after, said these words, and her words were almost verbatim what I had been thinking. And these types of things have happened, over and over again since.

          So, there comes a point when one has to reasonably consider that our little fishbowl we think is reality might not be all there is. To say it can’t be supernatural because we don’t believe there is such a thing becomes nothing more than circular reasoning.

      • Lander7 says:

        You stated — “because your interpretation of an experience is the final arbiter and we know you cannot possibly be incorrect. Your faith will not allow it.”

        My response — interpretation can only be used with a weak experience. This is to say that the more intense an experience the less it needs to be interpreted (if at all).

  2. tildeb says:

    And you’ve positively ruled out the bicameral brain, eh?

  3. Love that testimony, Mel! I had a new baby back in 1982 and I was struggling with God at the time, too. I’ve always “believed,” but there is “belief “and then there is just knowing. Woah, big difference!

    This quote gave me a chuckle, “A man who has an encounter is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.” Right? I’ve been left rather helplessly responding, “Well because God said, I just asked Him, and He told me.” I am keenly aware of how ridiculous that sounds, but I do hear His Still Quiet Voice and sometimes I can hear Him in the synchronicity too, in the perfect timing of events, in the words He puts in others that are meant just for us.

    • Mel Wild says:

      I agree. While an encounter is far superior to an argument, it’s very hard to explain, let alone prove to someone else. That’s why when another person says exactly the same thing I was hearing, when neither one of us were soliciting it from the other, is a good confirmation.

      Over the years as a pastor, there’s probably been about 30-40% of my Sunday messages I was going to give either alluded to, confirmed, sometimes almost given verbatim by people who had no idea what I was going to share, before I even get up to preach! It’s actually quite funny. Sometimes, I just get up and put a period to it! Of course, these are all just coincidences. 😛

      • Ha! I have had some startling moments, those times when you really wonder if someone has hidden cameras in your house or been spying on you. Elf on a shelf, perhaps? It often makes me laugh and then I have to explain why I might have been giggling through an entire sermon. 🙂

    • This is so true… This is why Religious Christianity (if that is such a thing) does not get it when they try to disprove an encounter with God with theological debates and those who had the encounter say, “I’ve got it and you can’t take it.”

  4. sklyjd says:

    “There are various ways we can distinguish our thoughts from God’s voice to verify it’s Him, but the point here is that He is speaking.”

    Please verify how, because I must have also had God speak to me. One time I had a thought voice tell me that my mother had a heart problem. I found out later she had been diagnosed with a problem that she never mentioned. Coincidence or God?

    Of course, I consciously knew she was a heavy smoker and even though she was only in her late 40’s she did little in the way of physical exercise and the chances are she would have lung or heart problems and she did actually die at age 50 of a heart problem.

    In your world that was a warning from God, in mine it is a chance thought that was not a warning but possibly an inevitable thought.

    What about one of my friends in NZ who died of cancer, I had this voice in my head telling me I should go and visit because he will die soon and sure enough a few days after my visit he died. Was this God telling an atheist what was going to happen? No, this is pure chance, these thought voices are equally right as they are wrong.

    How about an investment, I just had this thought voice saying I should invest in this equity, it just appeared so natural to do so and it turned out to be the best investment I have ever made because it recovered a huge amount of funds almost to the dollar amount that I had previously lost, an investment also with a thought voice prompt. Gods voice, his guidance?

    I could go on with the voices directing me here and there with mixed results for many events, some of them very sad, but it is clear these are random results, chance or the law of averages. Please do not try and tell me you are different and can define Gods voice and this makes you a more successful decision maker because there are thousands of people who were Christians who now understand the truth.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Of course, not everything we think we hear is from God. I never claimed that. And please don’t tell me you didn’t hear from God at all. You simply dismissed them all as chance. You didn’t prove anything one way or the other. Just one big hand-wave. Besides, the example I gave here is someone I never met, never talked to, saying almost verbatim what I was thinking. How do you explain that in your little flattened materialist world? Chance? LOL! I’ll be nice. Believe whatever you want. It really doesn’t matter to me what you think about it. As Jesus said, you will have what you believe. Good luck with that.

      • sklyjd says:

        “How do you explain that in your little flattened materialist world? Chance? LOL!”

        Yes, a chance in any amount of millions. Have you never heard of people winning lotteries or two people saying the same thing at the same time? Or considered the amazing luck and impossible odds like the woman who fell out of a disintegrating airliner so many thousand metres high into the jungle and with many injuries dragged herself to find help over an 11 day period and was the only survivor?

        Amazing happenings of good and bad happen to people every day, this is not new phenomenon. I have never ruled out telepathy and in fact research in 2014 has supported that, with a scientifically validated demonstration of mind-to-mind communication.

        You can apply everything to God just as you do the weather and the deaths of children with all your amazing events and luck etc. But of course, it is as I have explained before, your beliefs are a creation within your own brain. And it is to this organ that you should thankful.

        • Mel Wild says:

          You can apply everything to God just as you do the weather and the deaths of children with all your amazing events and luck etc.

          And you can apply everything to chance, which is a convenient way to dismiss everything that doesn’t fit your worldview. And there are very cogent reasons for why the weather does what it does or why children die. Certainly not pure chance. So there we are.

          But of course, it is as I have explained before, your beliefs are a creation within your own brain. And it is to this organ that you should thankful.

          Of course, you can praise your brain for giving you all the answers to your existence. I will praise God for giving me such a wonderful brain to be able to even ponder such things in the first place.

          But before I leave this conversation, you should consider at least two problems with your brain-reality. One I’ve already asked you about on the previous post that you conveniently ignored. The other point stems from the first.

          1.) You have not provided me with a cogent answer to why your brain, which is contingent, continues to exist at all. Since the brain, our bodies, and everything in the material world is contingent, not fully actuated but in motion, and therefore logically reliant on a more fundamental power, you have no ground of being. So the rest of your speculations are unprovable, possibly even disproven.

          2.) Since you say your brain is the result of evolutionary process, and that the material world is all there is, then there is no reason you should trust your brain to give you truth, because evolutionary processes do not serve truth, but only survival. And it’s very easy to prove that survival is not the same motive as searching for truth. So, why should you trust anything your brain is telling you beyond pure survival? Why should you even wonder at all about these things? This subject doesn’t serve survival.

          Sorry, you have some major cognitive dissonance going on here. I wouldn’t want to embrace such an incoherent worldview. Again, good luck with that. But I’m not the least bit interested.

        • sklyjd says:

          “And you can apply everything to chance, which is a convenient way to dismiss everything that doesn’t fit your worldview. And there are very cogent reasons for why the weather does what it does or why children die. Certainly not pure chance. So there we are.”

          Chance is proven to be a fact of every day life, gamblers will testify to that, it affects us all, it is not a world view statement, it really happens and there is some weight in the saying “you make your own luck.” The weather and death I agree are cogent, not pure chance, however where you were born could be classed as chance and good or bad luck. God has nothing to do with the weather and these deaths then, is that what you mean?

          “Since the brain, our bodies, and everything in the material world is contingent, not fully actuated but in motion, and therefore logically reliant on a more fundamental power”

          What on Earth are you talking about? You are just wiggling back to a creator with superstitious ideals of a fundamental power.

          “Since you say your brain is the result of evolutionary process, and that the material world is all there is, then there is no reason you should trust your brain to give you truth,”

          Well this is the crux of the argument. Material objects can be seen often touched, smelt or confirmed as reality through due processes. This reality is not often in dispute. Because our brains are the master computer at invoking emotional states of mind due to what we hear, smell and see we are therefore not consciously in full control.

          For example, the sensed presence, this is when someone who becomes isolated in an extreme or unusual environment that comes with high levels of stress. These people have a perception that another person is with them to help them survive a hazardous situation. There is exciting new evidence from a research group led by Prof. Dr. Olaf Blanke a Professor of Neurology at the Department of Neurology at the University Hospital of Geneva demonstrates that it is the precise stimulation of specific brain regions that tricks people into feeling the “presence” of a ghostly apparition. (ref psychologytoday.com)

          The idea of the supernatural world, gods, devils, ghosts and voices from beyond can be explained and it always goes back to the brain and the power it possesses you will find in the God that your brain has simply created for you.

        • Mel Wild says:

          What on Earth are you talking about? You are just wiggling back to a creator with superstitious ideals of a fundamental power.

          Your abysmally ignorant response to my point is precisely the problem, sklyjd. It has nothing to do with superstitious ideals. It’s pure deductive reasoning and logic. If you understood basic philosophy you would know this. You cannot have something contingent sustaining itself in an essentially ordered elemental chain because it would create infinite regress and everything in the chain would cease to exist. This is why your ontology is and always will be incoherent.

          I’m done here. I don’t like wasting my time. You really can believe whatever you want. You’re just not going to convince anyone here. And since you reduce everything to chance, good luck.

        • sklyjd says:

          “If you understood basic philosophy you would know this. You cannot have something contingent sustaining itself in an essentially ordered elemental chain because it would create infinite regress and everything in the chain would cease to exist.”

          I obviously do not understand your basic philosophy regarding an essentially ordered elemental chain, therefore you are making your ontology incoherent as regards basic science.

          Humans may appear to exist in an essentially ordered elemental chain, however it is in a system of equilibrium. Equilibrium is a condition of a system in which all competing influences are balanced, in a wide variety of contexts. In other words, everything in its restful state of existence is in equilibrium. The balance of nature is a theory that proposes that ecological systems are usually in a stable equilibrium or homeostasis.

          “And since you reduce everything to chance, good luck.”

          I hope your God provides you with the same amount of good luck that we atheists receive.

        • Wally Fry says:

          “The balance of nature is a theory that proposes that ecological systems are usually in a stable equilibrium or homeostasis.”

          “Equilibrium is a condition of a system in which all competing influences are balanced, in a wide variety of contexts”

          I find it absolutely fascinating that you “penned” those words as if they were your own, in an effort to flex your supposed intellectual chops. Nice work Steve, they aren’t. A cursory search reveals both of those quotes were either from Wikiquotes, or a Wikipedia entry. LOL…that makes you a liar.

          Oh, and that last one? Regarding the balance of nature thing, you used to try to prove some point nobody understands? In the very same article, you plagiarized that quote from, it also says that the theory of the balance of nature has been discredited by most ecologists(those would be scientists Steve) Now, I don’t pretend to understand the science behind all of that fully, as I am not trained in those disciplines; you should try not bloviating on things you aren’t trained it yourself.

        • Mel Wild says:

          I obviously do not understand your basic philosophy regarding an essentially ordered elemental chain, therefore you are making your ontology incoherent as regards basic science.

          No, you don’t understand it at all because what you’re saying doesn’t even remotely address my point. Incoherence is not the same thing as arrogant ignorance, but you are demonstrating both here. You should try to actually understand an argument before you dismiss it. Nice quote-mining though. I think you should give it a rest.

      • Lander7 says:

        I’m a Christain so my goal is simply to answer your question.

        You asked — ” the example I gave here is someone I never met, never talked to, saying almost verbatim what I was thinking. How do you explain that ”

        I have an answer for you but keep in mind I still believe God exists.

        https://realitydecoded.blog/2018/02/13/two-cartoonist-link-minds-on-opposite-sides-of-the-atlantic/

        This is just one of many

    • Lander7 says:

      Why would your first response be to find out who’s voice it is?

      It seems to me that step one would be to test the voice. Maybe start looking for specific information for the voice to tell you.

      If it has been informative as you say then the first goal should be to hone in on more valuable information rather than the source.

      The source seems like a step 3 or 4 type priority.

      Just a thought

  5. Wally Fry says:

    Thanks for sharing this experience with us Mel. You have probably figured out I am about as fundamentalist as a person can get. Yet, I would also agree that sometimes in that, we lose sight of the nature of the very personal relationship we have with our Lord, being caught up in a lot of other stuff. It is a relationship, and He does speak.

    Last thought, When are you going to cast these atheist haters out of here? All they are doing is trying to keep people away from your blog because most folks don’t want to have to wade through the poo to learn something around here. I sure understand trying to reach the curious and truly seeking….but these guys? Bleh. Your place, but I just had to share my thoughts.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Thanks, Wally. Good insights.

      Last thought, When are you going to cast these atheist haters out of here? All they are doing is trying to keep people away from your blog because most folks don’t want to have to wade through the poo to learn something around here.

      Good point, Wally. I generally encourage an open honest discussion with people who may disagree, or don’t believe in God, but I will probably have put the ones who post endless comments here in moderation since they’re clearly not interested in the topic and just want to waste everybody’s time. Thanks for your thoughts. 🙂

    • Lander7 says:

      You stated — “When are you going to cast these atheist haters out of here? All they are doing is trying to keep people away from your blog because most folks don’t want to have to wade through the poo to learn something around here”

      My response — If you kick them out how will they learn what you have to say?

      • Wally Fry says:

        My response is that some have absolutely no intention of learning. They come with the express and only purpose of interfering. No blogger has an obligation to support that nor is any Christian blogger Biblically commanded to.

        • Lander7 says:

          What say you to the one who wrote this?

          2 Timothy 2:24-26
          24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

        • Wally Fry says:

          What say you to the one who instructed His disciples to shake the dust off their feet or to not cast pearls before swine

        • Lander7 says:

          You stated — “What say you to the one who instructed His disciples to shake the dust off their feet”

          Matthew 10:14
          14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
          My response is that some have absolutely no intention of learning.

          I say that this is not a house and none of us are leaving

          Do you deny this verse?

          2 Timothy 2:24-26
          24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

        • Wally Fry says:

          Well you can say what you want. This is Mels house so to speak

          Really? Do i deny it? If I disagree with you that doesn’t mean I deny anything.

          Look you do as you wish. Mel will to. I stand by my counsel to him. There are brothers and sisters who might come here to learn and converse but will not because if the rabid mad dog atheists evangelists. If your position is that Mels obligation to provide atheist preachers a forum is greater than his obligation to genuine seekers or curious brethren the frankly that is a poor position

        • Lander7 says:

          My position is the following:

          God said: 2 Timothy 2:24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil,

          Mel said: ” rabid mad dog atheists evangelists.”

          My response — Titus 3:1-15
          Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, …

        • Wally Fry says:

          Actually Mel didn’t say that about rabid mad dog atheists. I said it. Mel is nice. I am not as much.

          Then again your dogged persistence that I am rejecting scripture when in fact I just disagree with you is hardly rendering what I call perfect courtesy.

        • Lander7 says:

          When you say you are disagreeing with me what do you mean because I posted scripture.

          I didn’t write the verses so they aren’t mine. Who are you disagreeing with?

          I would understand you better if you just stated a response to the scripture instead of conflating me with it.

          If you don’t believe the scripture or you think it doesn’t apply then fine just say so.

          If you believe the scripture and you think it applies then that’s also ok. I was simply looking for your opinion.

          If you want to know how I myself feel about it then just ask.

        • Wally Fry says:

          Well I am pretty sure my opinion is clear. I do not think nor do I believe the scripture you quoted dictates that Mel allow every person free reign into eternity to actively interfere with his effort to reach out to real seekers.

          I belive all scripture and I believe all scripture applies. In this case i just don’t agree with your application. That and not believing the scripture are not the same.

          And actually if you feel a way say it. Why use a hundred words when 10 will suffice?

        • Lander7 says:

          You stated — “Why use a hundred words when 10 will suffice?”

          My response — “I’m not sure it matters how many words I use since the truth is all that matters but I will limit responses in the future with you to just a few and no verses since it is causing some frustration.

          You stated — ” i just don’t agree with your application.”

          My response — This response is perplexing to me. You stated that a person was a “rabid dog” this seems clearly not supported in scripture, am I applying it incorrectly?

        • Wally Fry says:

          Lander. Look this easy. You clearly rebuked me for my counsel to Mel to drop the atheist haters.

          You used a scripture to support your rebuke. I disagree with your application of it.

          You are correct. Scripture never refers to atheists as rabid dogs. Neither do i as most are not. Some if my favorite relatives and friends are atheists and they are not rabid.

          The term rabid mad dog atheists evengeIists is my own and I stand behind it in regard to some Internet atheist who do not seek truth but only to destroy

        • Lander7 says:

          Honest response, thanks.

          Although I’m not rebuking you but to be fair it’s logical to see it that way from your perspective.

          My reasons are a bit different and not typical. I have a theory and I’ve been testing it.

          I think if you want them out and you can convince Mel to boot them then no big deal (out they go).

          I was more interested in your reasoning than in who can actually be on the site.

          You are helping confirm something about fellow believers. Nothing more than that.

          Thanks for the talk.

        • tildeb says:

          Wally, you have confused truth with your faith-based beliefs. They are not synonyms but all too often antonyms.

        • Wally Fry says:

          What’s that comment got to do with the conversation Lander and I just had?

          Answer. Nothing

        • tildeb says:

          You wrote, “The term rabid mad dog atheists evengeIists is my own and I stand behind it in regard to some Internet atheist who do not seek truth but only to destroy.”

          I sent along my observation that what you’re really standing behind is your trust in your own faith-based beliefs you use to produce ongoing vilification of those non believers who respect what’s probably true and dare to point out that many of your faith-based claims very often are contrary to both fact and reality. That’s why I say you confuse your faith-based beliefs to be falsely equivalent to the truth when very often they stand firmly contrary to it, even contrary to scripture you claim to fundamentally endorse. The irony is lost on you. And when these non believers refuse to yield to your insistence that your false beliefs are true in fact, that’s when the vitriolic descriptions of them pour out of you. I appreciate Lander7 attempting to get you to revisit your commitment to uphold your own beliefs over and above even scripture!

        • Wally Fry says:

          Tildeb. I don’t care who disagrees with me. Many do. My problem

        • Wally Fry says:

          Tildeb I have no beef with those who disagree with me. Most do. My beef is with just who I said. Rabid mad dog atheists evangelists like you. You don’t pursue truth you just insist you own it and want to scream all those who don’t agree into submission.

          My comment stands. Get over it

        • Wally Fry says:

          FYI. The scripture you just quoted is not a command to open ones house and let unruly guests to say anything they want and act anyway they desire.

        • Lander7 says:

          This is a public forum not a house and not your house.

          This is the word of God giving instruction:
          2 Timothy 2:24-26
          24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

          Do you want to change your view or are your ways above those ways

        • Wally Fry says:

          Lol. Nope don’t want to change my view. Nope my ways are certainly not above those ways. Don’t ya think that saying by disagreeing with you that I am rejecting God’s Word is an tad bit uppity?

        • Lander7 says:

          You stated — “Don’t ya think that saying by disagreeing with you that I am rejecting God’s Word is an tad bit uppity?”

          Am I missing something Mel? What have I said to you about God’s word? I remember correcting you about a public forum being a house but I haven’t said anything about scripture.

          All I did was post scripture. You must be seeing a conflict of some kind.

        • Wally Fry says:

          Lander do you realize that you have not been speaking to Mel?

          It was my advice to Mel you had the issue with. And yes you clearly asked if I thought i was above the words of scripture. No I do not think that but I do disagree with your application of them in this case

        • Lander7 says:

          Just a typo. Also I don’t have an issue with you just curiosity.

          I was trying to understand your position. At first glance I thought maybe you feared Atheist but then I started to think you may heavily dislike them.

          So I was curious if you were a Bible follower or not. I now have a better understanding of your religion so I will not press you with anymore questions.

          Thanks, very helpful.

        • Wally Fry says:

          Lander actually i had fun. I hope we can talk again. I don’t fear or dislike atheists. I just have no patience for stupidity and incoherence repeated over and over as if repetition equals truth.

        • Lander7 says:

          No doubt I’m open to future conversation, this was very helpful for my studies.

          I’m sure we can talk again on other posts.

        • Lander7 says:

          For the record I can understand your frustration with Atheist. They are a bit dogmatic with their responses.

        • Wally Fry says:

          Dogmatic? I am the most fundamental of fundamentalists and they make me look wishy washy lol.

        • Lander7 says:

          They can be a bit to scripted. I have only talked to a few and they don’t seem able to think outside the confines of strict counter beliefs.

  6. Lander7 says:

    “A man who has an encounter is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.”

    This is a great quote!

  7. Lander7 says:

    You stated — “There are various ways we can distinguish our thoughts from God’s voice to verify it’s Him”

    My response — What verse shows us how to do that?

    • Mel Wild says:

      Lander, thank you for your question. I would start with, does what you’re hearing agree with what God says about you in Scripture in general, does it ring true with the grace of God and the nature of Jesus Christ? Does it produce the fruit of the Spirit (Gal.5:22-23)? In other words, does the voice you hear produce love, peace, joy, patience, kindness…? Even a word that provokes or convicts will be of the nature of a loving father to his son or daughter he cherishes and only has their highest good in mind. John’s first epistle deals with this a lot, especially, chapter 4.

      What does this “voice” tell us about Jesus?

      1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. (1 John 4:1-3)

      Or, does the “voice” agree with who God says we are in Christ? (Rom.6; 1 Cor.5:14-21; Gal.2:20; 4:4-6; Eph.1:4-7; 2:6; Col.3:3; 1 John 4:17, etc.)

      We also see Paul dealing with this in 1 Cor.12-14. Especially, chapter 14. Does the word we hear edify, exhort, or fortify us? (The etymology on the word, comfort is from two words: “come-fortify.”)

      3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men.

      26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

      Finally, those with spiritual discernment are told to judge the word (not the person), just like John tells us (1 John 4:1). So, what we say is from God is not up to private interpretation but subject to the community of believers, especially if it’s a word for the body.

      29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.

      There’s more but that’s enough for a comment section. 🙂

      • Lander7 says:

        Seems fair but is that true? You forget the story of Abraham, where the voice requested for him to kill someone.

        Since that would line up with faith and scripture would it be appropriate to say that a voice commanding someone to kill is the voice of god?

        • Mel Wild says:

          There are two things I would say to that. First, Abraham actually did hear God. As it turns out, God was testing him, to see if Abraham would believe the promise. Something we need to understand about this, the test was not in that Abraham would sacrifice his son. Human sacrifice was a highly-regarded pagan notion that he would be deeply steeped in. That was not the test. What made Abraham remarkable is that he believed that if he were to sacrifice Isaac, God would raise him from the dead. That’s the crux of faith. But God stopped him because His intent was to reveal to Abraham (and us) that this is not what He wants from us. He doesn’t want our sacrifice, He wants our trust. He wants our heart. This incident with Abraham reveals the first glimpse into what God is actually like. Jesus was the full revelation (John 1:18; Matt.11:27; Heb.1:2-3).

          The second thing I would say is that the New Covenant doesn’t operate like the Old Covenant. In the O.C. God only spoke through the prophets, so they had to get it right. But under the N.C., we all have the Holy Spirit, so all can hear His voice (John 10) and we, as the body of Christ, can discern whether it’s from God or not.

        • Lander7 says:

          You stated — “First, Abraham actually did hear God. ”

          My response — I don’t dispute that, in fact this is the reason I picked it as it lines up with scripture. What I was asking would it be ok for someone to hear the voice say kill your son today? Knowing that he as you said, “He wants our trust.” we could see the same request (or similar) come in a voice correct?

          You stated — “we, as the body of Christ, can discern whether it’s from God or not.”

          My response — Does this include Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and Scientologist?

        • Mel Wild says:

          I don’t dispute that, in fact this is the reason I picked it as it lines up with scripture. What I was asking would it be ok for someone to hear the voice say kill your son today?

          No, that would be anachronistic, not appropriate today because we now know that this is not how God operates. That’s what they thought God wanted in Abraham’s day. God used that perception to begin to show Abraham (and us)that He doesn’t want this. So it would be totally inappropriate today. We must see Scripture in the light of Jesus Christ, on this side of the Cross, and the history of Scripture as a trajectory of revelation leading up to Him.

          Does this include Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and Scientologist?

          I think Scripture has shown us that God can speak to anyone and everyone (even donkeys!) 🙂 Deciding if what anyone is hearing is actually from God follows the same criteria I mentioned.

        • Lander7 says:

          Interesting, thanks. I have a better understanding of your opinions on the Bible now.

          Could yuo give me your opinion of John Hawkins. He believed himself to be a righteous man due to his belief. Could you either confirm or deny from your perspective.

          https://realitydecoded.blog/2018/01/06/the-loved-slave-ship-jesus-of-lubeck/

        • Mel Wild says:

          As to John Hawkins, I read your post. His is a classic example of cognitive dissonance going on in religion because cultural norms were more dominant in their thinking than actual Christian values. Historically, much of government-sanctioned “Christendom” was not following Jesus at all, but using Christianity as a pretext. And buying and selling slaves violates the whole other-centered, self-giving love of Jesus’ teachings. The very opposite, actually. Unfortunately, no one thought slavery was bad until about the 18th century. And it was Christians like the Quakers and Wilberforce who exposed their hypocrisy.

          The cognitive dissonance is saying it’s alright to enslave people when the very center of your faith you profess is about setting the captives free. Enslaving people would represent the very opposite of Jesus’ teachings.

        • Lander7 says:

          From his perspective he was doing Gods will. The voices he heard told him he was doing the right thing and he used the Bible (like so many others) to prove he was right.

          First, interpretation allows people to come to strange conclusions about right and wrong in the Bible and second the voices they hear then line up with what they believe.

          It shocks me given the condition of mankind that we still have people that think everyone can come to a safe conclusions based on their beliefs as to justify voices in their heads.

          We will have to agree to disagree on this one. I don’t think we can trust people to know right from wrong and which voices are good or bad.

          But as always good conversation Mel, thanks. See you on the next topic.

        • Mel Wild says:

          From his perspective he was doing Gods will. The voices he heard told him he was doing the right thing and he used the Bible (like so many others) to prove he was right.

          I don’t seem to recall this Hawkins guy saying he heard voices at all. He was religious, following the norms of his culture. Being religious and following Jesus are not the same thing. Often the opposite. I don’t see how this is an example of why it’s dangerous to hear God’s voice?

          Thanks for your comments. Talk to you later.

        • Lander7 says:

          Everyone hears differently. I don’t think we can deny he felt his calling and may in fact have claimed to hear in his own way.

          We can agree to disagree on this one.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Since you wanted verses, I forgot to reference my point about Abraham being tested and the nature of his faith:

          17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,” 19 concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense. (Heb.11:17-19)

        • Lander7 says:

          Very interesting, thank you.

  8. sklyjd says:

    “You should try to actually understand an argument before you dismiss it. Nice quote-mining though. I think you should give it a rest.”

    If you could actually try to form an argument that I could understand, that would be nice for once.
    I think you must try to over complicate and confuse issues, so you can call guests on your blog arrogant and ignorant. Why don’t you give this attitude a rest?

    • Mel Wild says:

      If you could actually try to form an argument that I could understand, that would be nice for once.

      If you didn’t understand the argument, why did you dismiss it? And the argument is very clear. Various forms of these arguments have been around for 2,300 years. Simply put, your wonderful brain cannot create or sustain itself, neither can you, nor anything else in the cosmos, for they are contingent. And if everything is contingent, relying on a more fundamental force to sustain them, all the way down to quarks and beyond, then nothing can exist at all because you end up with infinite regress. I would explain what that means but you seem easily confused. But there’s nothing more elementary than this. Of course, if you did understand it you probably wouldn’t be an atheist (if you were honestly seeking). You would at least be an agnostic. Why? Because, ontologically speaking, the atheist “emperor” has no clothes. You have no coherent ontology at its most fundamental level.

      This is why all your wiki-quoting does not address my point at all.

      I think you must try to over complicate and confuse issues, so you can call guests on your blog arrogant and ignorant.

      I didn’t try to do any such thing. And I don’t just call people names. You are the one who came here with your pretentious attitude, pretending you knew something but were just quoting Wikipedia (without acknowledging the source), which is also a form of arrogance. And you dismiss what you don’t understand. That’s both arrogant and ignorant. So I didn’t just confuse the issue to call you names. I’m simply calling you out on what you’re doing. You can believe whatever worldview you want. But if you’re going to come here and pretend you have some superior knowledge and dismiss our argument as “superstitious ideals,” you should at least try to understand the other side’s argument first.

      • sklyjd says:

        “You are the one who came here with your pretentious attitude, pretending you knew something but were just quoting Wikipedia (without acknowledging the source), which is also a form of arrogance.”

        Thing is, I did know what I posted, and it was a sentence that explained exactly what I wanted to say. OK should have referenced my source but I would bet with all your blustering you have done the same. Any way the mistake certainly gave you guys a good excuse to go for my throat and perceive it as ignorance, and if that is not pretentious arrogance…

        “Simply put, your wonderful brain cannot create or sustain itself,”

        Well that is wonderful, you used the magic word “create,” We all know what that means.
        From my understanding nothing creates itself and lasts forever. procreation evolved, starting from a few cells about 4 billion years ago into the mating system that animals and cave men have used since their existence but probably with a little more decorum. (hope I have not lost you so far, if you need more detail go to Ark’s blog for someone to explain 🙂

        “But if you’re going to come here and pretend you have some superior knowledge and dismiss our argument as “superstitious ideals,”

        Humans have sustained their own survival due to using their brains on planet Earth and this is an definite fact, no evidence of any divine assistance has been found. It is quite straight forward, nothing complicated,

        • Mel Wild says:

          From my understanding nothing creates itself and lasts forever. procreation evolved, starting from a few cells about 4 billion years ago into the mating system that animals and cave men have used since their existence but probably with a little more decorum.

          Sorry, this is pure cognitive dissonance. You’re still not addressing my question at all. Technically speaking, you’re talking about etiology when an ontological question was asked. You have no explanation for why anything evolves. What is the fundamental power behind evolution? What is the power that sustains a cell’s existence, or a quark or a gluon or quantum gravity, for that matter. You still have not answered this most fundamental question. You cannot talk to me about natural processes before you establish what makes these processes exist in the first place. None of what you keep going on about is relevant to my question. I don’t know why you don’t see this. Your suppositions are faith-based since you apparently have no answer for why they continue to exist.

          Humans have sustained their own survival due to using their brains on planet Earth and this is an definite fact…

          Agreed. I never argued with that. The human brain is amazing.

          …no evidence of any divine assistance has been found. It is quite straight forward, nothing complicated,

          That’s a totally fallacious argument. An amateur category mistake. Of course, you won’t find physical evidence for an immaterial invisible God that you can test under a microscope. No theist has ever claimed you could. If God exists, science will never be able to detect Him for methodological reasons. He is not a being in the physical world. But His attributes are clearly seen in the world we live in (Rom.1:20). You will find LOTS of evidence in people’s transformed lives. But, STILL, if you are going to reject God, you MUST come up with a most fundamental motive force that sustains all these things we see and observe. Otherwise, your emperor has no clothes, so to speak.

          Again, before you can talk to me about the brain, you must establish (at least logically) why a brain can continue to exist (including every fundamental element in the distal chain down to the quark level). If you want to give me your answer to this question, I will post it, otherwise your comments will be moderated. We’ve gone around in circles here long enough. We’ve gone way beyond the subject of the post and it’s just cluttering up the comments here.

        • sklyjd says:

          Ontology is the philosophical study of being. More broadly, it studies concepts that directly relate to being, in particular becoming, existence, reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. (Wikipedia)

          Ontology is philosophical, and it is about concepts that are simply ideas that are theoretical and maybe even logical, however your ontology is more to do with discarding scientific processes in favour of an ideological concept that supports your religious faith.

          “What is the power that sustains a cell’s existence, or a quark or a gluon or quantum gravity, for that matter.”

          I understand everything on Earth is based on energy, that energy is constant and can never be created or eliminated, it changes forms and it can be distributed from one thing to another. This is a scientific reality, take food for example that energy is transferred to living creatures when they eat. If they do not eat they die and the “mightier than any gods” brain is sustained by this energy. Does this answer your question, and do you agree?

          “Of course, you won’t find physical evidence for an immaterial invisible God that you can test under a microscope. No theist has ever claimed you could. If God exists, science will never be able to detect Him for methodological reasons. He is not a being in the physical world.”

          Hang on a minute Mel, I thought Jesus was a third of God and was he not physical and material in the form of a human? If he can manifest then why not now? Of course, you would say science cannot detect him, but you are wrong. He exists between your ears where the ghosts, devils, angels and werewolves exist. Prove me wrong on this one and I will become the most devout Christian you have ever seen in your life.

          “you MUST come up with a most fundamental motive force that sustains all these things we see and observe. Otherwise, your emperor has no clothes, so to speak.”

          Sorry Mel, it is your unseen God that is all butt naked😊

        • Mel Wild says:

          Okay, this is my last comment to you. I’ve wasted enough time here.

          I understand everything on Earth is based on energy, that energy is constant and can never be created or eliminated, it changes forms and it can be distributed from one thing to another.

          But this is an etiological argument not ontological. What is energy? Energy is simply the motive processes I’ve been taking about. It’s been defined this way: “In physics, energy is the quantitative property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object.”(Wikipedia) So, energy, by definition, is distal objects in motion in a chain and therefore contingent. We still have to ask where does this process obtain its motive power to release energy? You have not changed the argument at all.

          Hang on a minute Mel, I thought Jesus was a third of God and was he not physical and material in the form of a human?

          Okay, now you’re opening a new subject. Yes, Jesus is both fully human and fully God (called hypostatic union). I would have to get into the concept of essence and energies here, which I don’t want to since since I’ve talked about this many times before, but simplistically stating it, the earthly Jesus had both the physical nature and the divine. But His resurrected “body” is not in the physical realm now.

          I think this conversation has gone on long enough. I wish you the best.

        • tildeb says:

          Energy is a motive process? Umm, no…. Energy is acceleration (the rate of change of velocity per unit of time) and mass (resistance to acceleration). In physics, these terms describe relative properties of objects and not processes.

          Why does this understanding matter?

          Because you quote wiki on the one hand (“energy is the quantitative property…”) and then turn right around and state as if true that “Energy is simply the motive processes I’ve been taking about.”

          Look, physics is hard. Throw in the mechanics of quanta and it’s nigh impossible to confidently grasp how stuff really works. The contingent chain you use in your argument is not simple when you add in emergent properties and try to wrap your head around the idea that effect is not the only product of cause or that cause can be linked to effect when we start look at the very large and very small when such physics simply begins to break down and we realize how much we don’t know about these extremes. That’s why I mention the arrow of time… because physical, chemical, and biological states previous to entropy (which is what gives us this dimension of time) simply are not known. Sure, you can slip in the idea of a ‘creative force’ and because we don’t know then we can shrug at this claim. It’s as good as ‘Warbly Wumpums’, a magical creative force I imagine that exists only in 12 dimensions and immune to entropy. That doesn’t make my answer ‘philosophical’ but it is as logical as the argument you present.

          What I have tried to point out here are two things: that philosophy and logic regarding our universe and how it operates are not substitutes for physics, which is what these religious arguments try to pretend to be; that these arguments do nothing to connect your religious beliefs to a necessary creator.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Energy is a motive process? Umm, no…. Energy is acceleration (the rate of change of velocity per unit of time) and mass (resistance to acceleration). In physics, these terms describe relative properties of objects and not processes.

          Perhaps my choice of words was not the best, but the argument is still the same. Energy is the result of this acceleration and mass, as you stated. But then we have to say that this energy is a composite property in motion, which means it’s contingent since we must ask what is the fundamental force that brings this acceleration and mass together? And since mass is composite, made of parts, it too is contingent because there must be a motive power that brings its parts together.

          As far as the time element, we are only concerned with one slice in time, and rate of change is, by definition, contingent, in motion.

          What I have tried to point out here are two things: that philosophy and logic regarding our universe and how it operates are not substitutes for physics, which is what these religious arguments try to pretend to be; that these arguments do nothing to connect your religious beliefs to a necessary creator..

          Of course, and I have never argued that philosophy is a substitute for physics. But physics is no substitute for metaphysics for the reasons I’ve stated. You simply cannot find this particular answer through physics because the laws of physic break down when you beyond more fundamental sources than matter, which you logically must do if you are going to find an ultimate source that is necessary and fully actualized in every sense (otherwise you have infinite regress). You can call this force something other than “God” if you want, but understand that classic theology and its terminology (infinite, omnipresent, omniscient, simple (not made of parts), non-material, eternal. etc.) are all derived from these logical deductions (there are several others like this). And these arguments have been hammered out for over 2,300 years by both pagan and religious philosophers alike. So some simplistic dismissal isn’t going to affect them, especially when it doesn’t even address the argument. So I could say that you must import your scientism in order to deny them.

          And, as I’ve said at other times, this only gets us as far as the god of philosophy, but my point for bringing them up is that it necessarily eliminates atheism (because an atheistic ontology is incoherent for logical reasons) and it eliminates being a deist. You are left with some form of classical theism. You can disagree if you want, and I’m sure you will, but the logic is still irrefutable.

        • tildeb says:

          No. Your argument does not eliminate atheism because the argument you raise regarding an atheistic ontology is NOT incoherent for logical reasons! That’s why I point out I can substitute any point of origin and it remains logically coherent.

          First of all, atheism does not propose no origin; atheism is the lack of belief in gods or a god. You’re the one placing a god at this point of origin and then trying to defend it by saying it’s logical. The atheist doesn’t put anything at this point of origin because the truth of the matter is that I don’t know and you don’t either. That’s the brute fact. The atheist and agnostic are the only honest ones here in this matter. What is NOT coherent is you assuming only your assumption of a divine starting point is the only logical one and on this matter you are factually wrong. Write it out. The same logic holds for any and all substitutions for “I don’t know”. That’s why this is a factious argument regarding some divine creator. The theist does not own the logic here.

          Secondly, ontology in its scientific use means a set of concepts and categories in a subject area or domain that shows their properties and the relations between them. That’s the methodology of science, a domain that shows properties and relationships (processes). For you to try to continue to use philosophy and metaphysics to make scientific claims about the origin of the universe is a matter of you crossing the boundary that separates them without any evidence that can be SHOWN to support your incursion. The ‘attributes’ you claim support your invasion of the scientific domain fail to show anything about a divine creator. It is therefore YOUR ontology that is the problem here, by trying to make the square pegs of theology fit into the round holes of reality described by the scientific method.

          Thirdly, you are relying on recycling an archaic Aristotelian argument about motion that assumes it must have agency, and because it has agency therefore it must have purpose as well as attributes indicating the agency’s nature… a nature we supposedly and logically can know something about. This ‘natural philosophy’ and the veritable host of metaphysical assumptions built on it (read Aquinas, for crying out loud) and swallowed wholesale by the early Christian Church was SHOWN by Galileo to be without scientific merit. It is factually wrong. We have known this for nearly 500 years. It’s about time for religious apologists to catch up with the science. The argument does not stand up to reality’s testing of it. Your argument is this same argument, one raised over and over and over again by Christian apologists who mistakenly think it has scientific merit because it’s logical when it does not have any scientific merit in spite of it being logical. That’s the central error you make. The argument you use has always been without any scientific merit whatsoever but full to the useless brim of logical metaphysics because it cannot show any merit. That’s why I say the correct area for investigating origins about the universe and everything it contains is not religion – which is nothing more than dressed up and fawned over assumptions about supernatural whatever and which depends on this factually incorrect metaphysics built on logical but incorrect assumptions – but by correctly using the scientific ontology in all its various fields… fields of study that, unlike religious apologetics, actually produce knowledge and insight into the reality we share and upon which we have then successfully built applications, therapies, and technologies that work for everyone everywhere all the time in the last 500 years. Metaphysics? Nothing. No one thing. It’s batting average is 0.000%

          Time to get unstuck, Mel.

        • Mel Wild says:

          The atheist doesn’t put anything at this point of origin because the truth of the matter is that I don’t know and you don’t either.

          You’re right, Tildeb. The atheist has no ontology. So it has absolutely nothing to offer about the most fundamental question of all. What you have is magic thinking. Elements just POOF together somehow and we don’t ever try to reason why. We just shrug our shoulders and say, it just is. It’s intellectual laziness at its worst. But then you don’t leave it there. You substitute “science” in areas of knowledge that science cannot answer.

          So, all your long-winded bloviating here is just your opinionated denial. I don’t need to comment on every point. Of course, we don’t develop things like science research and technology and other similar areas of study with religion. That’s not an argument that has ever been made by me. But science is batting 00000% on explaining being, and those who embrace scientism will always limit themselves by their own denial of the possibility of anything existing outside of their presupposed naturalist fish bowl. So, now we live in a quite flattened and disenchanted world, to quote Charles Taylor. So, I can say to you. It’s time you got unstuck from our myopic worldview.

          Have a good week. I’m getting tired of this conversation. You should be, too.

        • tildeb says:

          So now you claim that admitting to not knowing something that one does not know is ‘magical thinking’!

          And you think not substituting some superstitious belief in place of not knowing means this is a ‘failure’ to provide a ‘satisfactory’ ‘answer’!

          And you call my comment ‘bloviating’?

          Wow.

          Do you ever sit back and marvel at the intentional reversals from good thinking you must endure to to maintain your faith-based beliefs from legitimate and justified criticism and the mental gymnastics you have to undergo to contort your beliefs to sound rational? No wonder you must vilify those who point out your argument’s inherent dishonesty and lack of intellectual rigor to promote them.

          I mean, seriously Mel, this comment of yours is award winning in stupid.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Who is being stupid here when you have NO answer for being yet insist that a logically sound answer is mental gymnastics? Well I’m sorry, Tildeb, but some things are complicated. Don’t go into any advanced level of learning if you’re too pressed to think beyond your own preconceived conclusions.

          You obviously despise any reasoning that disagrees with your simplistic and myopic naturalist conclusions. And, yes, it’s either magic thinking or cognitive dissonance to just ignore the most fundamental question of all, and then say the natural world is all there is, and it just got here on its own. That’s just mulish ignorance.

          And there’s nothing more dishonest than dismissing what you clearly don’t understand and then turning around and calling my comments stupid. Honestly. Tildeb. Give it a break. You disagree. Fine. But you’re certainly no judge on what is stupid here.. Good-bye.

  9. Mel,I really appreciate your words about Abraham, and also about discerning and testing spirits. I’ve read some things you’ve said before that are all consistent with that. So besides weighing it against scripture and asking, “does it ring true with the grace of God and the nature of Jesus Christ? Does it produce the fruit of the Spirit ,” I would add to that, also God’s compassion, His mercy for us. I sometimes laugh about God causing Adam to fall into a deep sleep before he took out His rib, because He didn’t have to, that was actually an act of compassion, of great mercy. I call it “God’s anesthesia.” So God will never ask us to do something that will collapse our psyche, damage our soul, or trick us or cause us to sin. If any of those things are happening, then that’s not God’s voice you’re hearing. It’s the gentleness of God that always surprises me, His protection of our spirits perhaps, His respect for our fragility.

    The question about Abraham, hearing voices, and “so would you kill your own son,” is a common one asked by many atheists.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Good points, IB. I agree the nature of God’s voice is to restore, to heal, to bring us into a greater awareness of His love and our identity, not to condemn or trample on, or trick us, as you said. God was revealing something to Abraham about Himself that Abraham would’ve never known had he not trusted Him.

      The question about Abraham, hearing voices, and “so would you kill your own son,” is a common one asked by many atheists.

      True. I find that atheists often use these kinds of passages as cannon fodder because they generally don’t understand what’s going on in the Old Testament. They apply them anachronistically, taking them totally out of their cultural context and applying 21st century morality to them. What’s actually going is much deeper and more brilliant than their superficial dismissals. That’s why I say to never let an atheist interpret Scripture for you. It’s usually pretty horrendous. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.