The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

PDN wrote: »

As a parent, the difference is clear. I want my child to be inspired to emulate people like Wilberforce and King who made the world a better place. I never want her to be like the sick person who believes God has told him to kill people.

Likewise, but that does not answer the question.

So, again -- what is the "clear" difference, from the hearer's point of view, between somebody hearing god tell them to fly an airplane into a tall building, and god telling them to build a better mousetrap?

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You will only find out if the God of the Bible is different from all the rest if you sincerely seek to know. See my post to daithifleming.

I was a Catholic until the age of 14. Nothing that I read or was told in all of that time convinced me that it was sensible for me to believe in God. When the crisis came I did the usual, called out for God through prayer and found nothing. I investigated other faiths until I realised that my need for belief was founded upon my fear of death and oblivion.

You do face death and something much worse than oblivion, so fear is an appropriate response. You just stopped your quest too soon. You must diligently seek Him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But let me also ask - what is the meaning you have found and are content with? How objective is it? How logical is it?

My purpose in life is to seek happiness and contentment through my personal life and my work and to attempt to help others to be happy also. It is not objective, since the objective universe is an unverifiable assumption on my part. It is entirely logical. A good and kind life pleases me, I wish to be happy, therefore I pursue a good and kind life.

Yes, that is at least temporarily fulfilling. But others would be just as fulfilled by rape & pillage. Objective good is what you really need; don't be satisfied with less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Is it a comfort-blanket philosophy you constructed to make life bearable...

Funnily enough, this describes my view of religion.

Yes, most religions share that with yours. You need the real one, not human substitutes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
...or is it a recognition of reality, the actual meaning of all existence?

Meaning is a human concept derived from our pattern recognition and hypothesizing tendencies. These tendencies can allow us to see faces and shapes in white noise on a TV. To search for patterns in the lotto numbers and on roulette wheels where none exist. There is no verifiable objective meaning. Existence, by my observation, does not have meaning other than self-propagation (which is less meaning than it is a pre-requisite of existing). We must construct our own meaning based on our best possible understanding of the universe around us. Religions were constructed based on limited information. We now possess enough information to make a rational decision to abandon them in favour of models which fit the facts better.

You hypothesise that there is no verifiable objective meaning - but what if you are wrong? What if the God revealed in the Bible is the real centre of meaning for the universe? If so, you are living in rebellion against Him and an eternity of darkness awaits you. Why not earnestly seek Him, to see if what the gospel says is true?
Matthew 11:28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

I think you don't understand. There is no Him, or Her, or It. What I (and Einstein) said is that our understanding of the universe is limited by our own minds and senses, and that there is more to the universe than we could possibly understand. If one wishes to call that 'god' then fine, but that doesn't mean there is an actual concious entity up there. That is just complete human fabrication. There is no creator of all things. Neither Einstein, nor Hawking, nor I believe there is one.

What you and your friends believe makes no difference to what actually is.

Saying we cannot know all things is no excuse for not knowning what we can - as even the lives of scientists demonstrates.

You choose to believe God is unknowable - indeed, you go on to assert that you know He doesn't exist. Hardly a logical conclusion - just a very flawed human fabrication.

wolfsbane

Eschatologist wrote: »

My understanding of a Christian was a person who belongs to the religion of Christ, who follows his teachings and the gospels. Whether that's from personal reading or being taught the life and words of Jesus in church, how is that different to believing what others say about God?

What exactly does encountering God in one's spirit mean, how does one know? Why do you have to have a personal experience to be a true Christian and not pass off said event as a mild buring sensatian at the back of your head or whatnot.

The difference lies in how we respond to the message of the gospel. If we just say, "That's an interesting view, and seems a good way to live. What harm can it do?" and adopt the Christian religion. No real change of heart has occurred, no coming to God in repentance and faith, just an impersonal religious adherence. That is not being a Christian.

A real Christian is one who has heard the gospel message and been convicted in his heart that it is true - that I am a sinner against God and eternally condemned; that God has provided a way back to Him, forgiveness based on the atoning death of His Son Jesus; that He calls me to that. I then obey that call, turning away from sin and to God, trusting in Jesus Christ as my saviour. All personal; of the heart/spirit, not just outward conformity.

God likewise is at work - opening my heart to understand and love His commands, comforting and strengthening me in all my struggles against the world, the flesh (my old nature) and the devil. The real Christian speaks with God in prayer and God speaks to him in His Word and by His Spirit.

pH

Peer reviewed creationist journal is go!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1

This is my favourite:

Testing the Hydrothermal Fluid Transport Model for Polonium Radiohalo Formation: The Thunderhead Sandstone, Great Smoky Mountains, Tennessee–North Carolina

by Andrew A. Snelling

The meta-arkoses of the Thunderhead Sandstone in the Great Smoky Mountains of Tennessee and North Carolina contain both detrital zircon grains and metamorphic biotite flakes in all zones of regional metamorphism. The original sandstones after deposition would have contained water. Furthermore, the reaction responsible for the mineralogical changes at the staurolite isograd would have produced large volumes of water. Thus it was predicted that during the regional metamorphism these waters as hydrothermal fluids should have transported Po from the zircon grains to the biotite flakes to generate Po radiohalos in the latter. Also, the greater volume of hydrothermal fluids at the staurolite isograd should have generated more Po radiohalos there. Both predictions were verified, with four–five times more Po radiohalos in the meta-arkoses straddling the staurolite isograd. These results also verify the hydrothermal fluid transport model for Po radiohalo formation. It was concluded that the regional metamorphism, the hydrothermal fluid flows, the cooling of the regional metamorphic complex, and the formation of the Po radiohalos all had to have occurred within a few weeks. This is feasible in the context of catastrophic plate tectonics and grossly accelerated 238U decay during the Genesis Flood.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/testing-radiohalos-model

It seems to be mainly anti-geology

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

What you and your friends believe makes no difference to what actually is.

You are right, the masses of evidence which shows the bible to be a load of nonsense is more important that individual beliefs.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Saying we cannot know all things is no excuse for not knowing what we can - as even the lives of scientists demonstrates.

Indeed, but one cannot know God, if he/she/it exists.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You choose to believe God is unknowable - indeed, you go on to assert that you know He doesn't exist. Hardly a logical conclusion - just a very flawed human fabrication.

Indeed, it is just my opinion, but at least i justify my logic based on the evidence i see, instead of what i hope is true.

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

You are right, the masses of evidence which shows the bible to be a load of nonsense is more important that individual beliefs.



Indeed, but one cannot know God, if he/she/it exists.



Indeed, it is just my opinion, but at least i justify my logic based on the evidence i see, instead of what i hope is true.

If you want to present logic or evidence then please do so. This board is for the discussion of Christian issues, not just a platform for atheists to declare what they don't believe.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

You do face death and something much worse than oblivion, so fear is an appropriate response. You just stopped your quest too soon. You must diligently seek Him.

The fear of death is a requirement of any feeling self-replicating entity. I fear it not because of any sophisticated philosophical concept, nor the damnation you would try to worry me with, and shame on you for that. I fear it because hundreds of millions of years worth of my ancestors had to fear it for me to exist.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, that is at least temporarily fulfilling. But others would be just as fulfilled by rape & pillage. Objective good is what you really need; don't be satisfied with less.

We are temporary, so temporary fulfillment is perfectly adequate.

Those fulfilled by rape and pillage are not wrong because God says so; they are wrong because the majority of humans find such things to be objectionable for many worthy reasons. These things are crimes in godless (from your perspective) cultures.

There is no objective morality- it is an invention created to satisfy our need for justice on some astral plane when justice cannot be had. Instead, there are 6.5 billion subjective moralities. The closest thing to an objective sense that exists is the sum average of these expressed through laws.

This does not invalidate "right and wrong", it strengthens them. They are concepts that we arrive at through consensus and debate, through the purifying fire of generations of scrutiny. Not some absolute, context-free imperitives zapped onto stone slabs by a being of incredible power and indeterminate motive.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, most religions share that with yours. You need the real one, not human substitutes.

I don't have a religion. I have skepticism. As for religions, they all claim to be the real one. We've been through that before- nothing you've said makes yours stand apart from the others.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You hypothesise that there is no verifiable objective meaning - but what if you are wrong?

Then it would be verifiable. I cannot think of a way to test this. Perhaps you can verify it to my satisfaction? Quoting from the bible would not fulfill my criteria.

wolfsbane wrote: »

What if the God revealed in the Bible is the real centre of meaning for the universe?

What if you and I are both living in defiance of Zeus? An old-school vengeful god... I'd be much more worried about him than I'd be about a forgiving God.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If so, you are living in rebellion against Him and an eternity of darkness awaits you.

It is logically impossible to rebel against an omnipotent intelligence. Every detail of my being would be created by such a being and/or controllable by Him. He might forbid himself to interfere with my free will but He would have had to have had considerable input by action or inaction into how my skeptical nature came to be.

I will thank you not to threaten me with eternal darkness. I'm sure you wouldn't want me to become a convert through fear?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Why not earnestly seek Him, to see if what the gospel says is true?

I gave it a try. And I return to the question occasionally- the world view is appealing after all. I always come to the same conclusion.

So to counter... why not, just for a day perhaps, consider the possibility that I am correct? That God was invented by people as they emerged into self awareness and needed to quell the fears that arose from their interaction with a world that was, at the time, just beyond their comprehension. To dispell their uncertainties surrounding death, thus allowing them to function without catatonic fear. To satisfy the sense of justice, which originated in our primate ancestors (and indeed is still observable in them) and which has been so frequently offended throughout human history with no earthly resolutions. To explain the complex behavior of the heavens. To justify our use of animals as "lesser" beings when our contradictory sense of fairness might have otherwise prevailed and left us to starve. For countless reasons in the absence of full knowledge of the world and of the scientific method. And most importantly because without it, our likelyhood to reproduce was reduced and so the non-believers were selected against by evolution.

Or less than all of this. Consider merely that nothing specific to your religion may be demonstrated as true.

Consider this for a while. When the fear comes, don't jump back to the safe place just yet. Push through a little while. Remind yourself of what is good in your life that does not need God.

Ekancone

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I will thank you not to threaten me with eternal darkness. I'm sure you wouldn't want me to become a convert through fear?

No... of course not...

:rolleyes:

Ekancone

BBC NEWS
Ancient serpent shows its leg
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News

Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

The fossil snake with two legs

What was lost tens of millions of years ago is now found.

A fossil animal locked in Lebanese limestone has been shown to be an extremely precious discovery - a snake with two legs.

Scientists have only a handful of specimens that illustrate the evolutionary narrative that goes from ancient lizard to limbless modern serpent.

Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

Researchers at the European Light Source (ESRF) in Grenoble, France, used intense X-rays to confirm that a creature imprinted on a rock, and with one visible leg, had another appendage buried just under the surface of the slab.

"We were sure he had two legs but it was great to see it, and we hope to find other characteristics that we couldn't see on the other limb," said Alexandra Houssaye from the National Museum of Natural History, Paris.

The 85cm-long (33in) creature, known as Eupodophis descouensi , comes from the Late Cretaceous, about 92 million years ago.

Unearthed near the village of al-Nammoura, it was originally described in 2000.

Its remains are divided across the two interior faces of a thin limestone block that has been broken apart.

A portion of the vertebral column is missing; and in the process of preservation, the "tail" has become detached and positioned near the head.

But it is the unmistakable leg bones - fibula, tibia and femur - that catch the eye. The stumpy hind-limb is only 2cm (0.8in) long, and was presumably utterly useless to the animal in life.

Current evidence suggests that snakes started to emerge less than 150 million years ago.

Two theories compete. One points to a land origin in which lizards started to burrow, and as they adapted to their subterranean existence, their legs were reduced and lost - first the forelimbs and then the hind-limbs.

The second theory considers the origin to be in water, from marine reptiles.

This makes the few known bipedal snakes in the fossil record hugely significant, because they could hold the clues that settle this particular debate.

The top picture is a synchrotron view of the visible snake leg
Synchrotron light in the bottom view illuminates the hidden limb

"Every detail can be very important in establishing the great relationships and that's why we must know them very well," explained Ms Houssaye.

"I wanted to study the inner structure of different bones and so for that you would usually use destructive methods; but given that this is the only specimen [of E. descouensi ], it is totally impossible to do that.

"3D reconstruction techniques were the only solution. We needed a good resolution and only this machine can do that," she told BBC News.

That machine is the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility. This giant complex on the edge of the Alps produces an intense, high-energy light that can pierce just about any material, revealing its inner structure.

For this study, the fossil snake was clamped to an inclined table and rotated in front of the facility's brilliant X-ray beam.

In a process known as computed laminography, many hundreds of 2D images are produced which can be woven, with the aid of a smart algorithm, into a detailed 3D picture.

The finished product, which can be spun around on a computer screen, reveals details that will be measured in just millionths of a metre.

The E. descouensi investigation shows the second leg hidden inside the limestone is bent at the knee.

"We can even see ankle bones," ESRF's resident palaeontologist Paul Tafforeau said.

"In most cases, we can't find digits; but that may be because they are not preserved or because, as this is a vestigial leg, they were never present."

To modern eyes, it may seem strange to think of a snake with legs.

But look at some of the more primitive modern snakes, such as boas and pythons, and you'll see evidence of their legged ancestry - tiny "spurs" sited near their ends, which today are used as grippers during sex.

Jonathan.Amos-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm

Published: 2008/04/10 08:42:01 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

Can't wait to see AiG's wacky explanation for this.

pH

daithifleming wrote: »

Can't wait to see AiG's wacky explanation for this.

My bet is a triumphant "We *knew* they had legs, the bible tells us this and God took their legs away after they ruined everything by tricking Eve, it's obviously a pre-fall snake."

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

As a parent, the difference is clear. I want my child to be inspired to emulate people like Wilberforce and King who made the world a better place. I never want her to be like thesick person who believes God has told him to kill people.

I also believe that there is a medical distinction in that Wilberforce and King were not mentally ill by any accepted medical criteria. Oh that we were all as sane as them!

You are kinda avoiding the issue.

Do you believe (or have you encountered) people who "hear" (as in actually hear) God telling them to do good, and are these cases a result of mental illness?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

How He does so is up to Him, but He expects us to test it all by His word and prayer.

If it is up to him how do you tell that it isn't him?

If it was genuinely God how would he do it?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You choose to believe God is unknowable - indeed, you go on to assert that you know He doesn't exist.

No, he asserts that he knows your version of "God" doesn't exist. There is a difference. He isn't saying he knows what is out there, simply that he knows enough to assert that it isn't what you believe.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

You are kinda avoiding the issue.

Do you believe (or have you encountered) people who "hear" (as in actually hear) God telling them to do good, and are these cases a result of mental illness?

I am not avoiding the issue at all.

I have, on one or two occasions, encountered people who have heard an audible voice directing them to do something good. Nothing in their subsequent behaviour caused any concern to friends, family etc and they displayed no symptoms that might suggest mental illness. They were never diagnosed as being mentally ill.

On the two occasions when I have encountered people claiming that voices told them to commit violence, their behaviour was so bizarre in other respects as to cause friends, family, and even bystanders on the street to conclude that they were mentally ill. They were both diagnosed as mentally ill.

Popinjay

PDN wrote: »

I have, on one or two occasions, encountered people who have heard an audible voice directing them to do something good. Nothing in their subsequent behaviour caused any concern to friends, family etc and they displayed no symptoms that might suggest mental illness. They were never diagnosed as being mentally ill.

My bold.

Were they tested?

Eschatologist

pH wrote: »

Peer reviewed creationist journal is go!

"...and grossly accelerated 238U decay during the Genesis Flood."

It seems to be mainly anti-geology

Accelerated nuclear decay, ah bless! It never ceases to bring an incredulous smile to my face.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I have, on one or two occasions, encountered people who have heard an audible voice directing them to do something good. Nothing in their subsequent behaviour caused any concern to friends, family etc and they displayed no symptoms that might suggest mental illness. They were never diagnosed as being mentally ill.

On the two occasions when I have encountered people claiming that voices told them to commit violence, their behaviour was so bizarre in other respects as to cause friends, family, and even bystanders on the street to conclude that they were mentally ill. They were both diagnosed as mentally ill.

Popinjay's question beat me to the punch ... where they tested?

Eschatologist

wolfsbane wrote: »

The difference lies in how we respond to the message of the gospel. If we just say, "That's an interesting view, and seems a good way to live. What harm can it do?" and adopt the Christian religion. No real change of heart has occurred, no coming to God in repentance and faith, just an impersonal religious adherence. That is not being a Christian.

Why not, why are you assuming it's impersonal? You're putting words in my mouth - apologies if you felt I was alluding to the casual Sunday church-goer who sins the rest of the week. But a person coming to the religion who accepts the teachings and word of Christ and tries to live a good life by those ideals is not a Christian? To me that is coming to God; I think it might be you who has the skewed view of what a Christian is.

wolfsbane wrote: »

A real Christian is one who has heard the gospel message and been convicted in his heart that it is true - that I am a sinner against God and eternally condemned; that God has provided a way back to Him, forgiveness based on the atoning death of His Son Jesus; that He calls me to that. I then obey that call, turning away from sin and to God, trusting in Jesus Christ as my saviour. All personal; of the heart/spirit, not just outward conformity.

I never said that people were taking up Christianity to conform to the masses, though of course this does happen. I asked if a person who came to Christianity who followed Jesus and his teachings was a real Christian, and you've basically repeated that in more eloquent terms - same difference. If one follows his teachings and thus genuinely feels bad about things they've done and acknowledges that, are they a Christian then?

Perhaps I'm wrong but the main difference I'm seeing between our Christian definitions is sin and eternal damnation. All I see when I read those words is "Subscribe to this religion because it is the only true religion (never mind that it can't be shown that it is) based on a book written by people (who may or may not have heard voices and had little science) which can save you from an eternity of torment because you are an inherently wicked person based on what two people did in Eden all those years ago... but oh, you have to really repent and not just don the religious mask. Merely leading a good life and being a decent person is not enough." That pretty much sums up my view. No matter how you dress it up, it reeks of control and fear tactics.

wolfsbane wrote: »

God likewise is at work - opening my heart to understand and love His commands, comforting and strengthening me in all my struggles against the world, the flesh (my old nature) and the devil. The real Christian speaks with God in prayer and God speaks to him in His Word and by His Spirit.

That's a very nice sentiment, but I'm sure all those fake Christians out there who pray and don't hear voices or feel a warm feeling in their heart also derive comfort from their prayer and lead better lives for it.

I'm really not feeling the whole 'repent or be damned' ideal. If I'm content and live a good life that should be enough; I shouldn't have to feel guilty about that for the sake of a higher being who may or may not exist who is in my opinion a construct of man. I'm willing to bet it's a real minority who genuinely repent and believe or trust fully in God etc. and so are safe from the eternal hellfires.

Doesn't bother me in the slightest that I'm in the majority - it is utterly silly and pointless for a god to put all that evidence out there for an old Earth and an old Universe, to give us the means to look at the world as it is and develop the scientific method, and still expect blind faith - is He testing us?? The bible is not infallible. Two words: artistic license.

pH

PDN wrote: »

If you want to present logic or evidence then please do so. This board is for the discussion of Christian issues, not just a platform for atheists to declare what they don't believe.

This thread has historically been an exception, if you as the new Christian mod would prefer that this thread is now Christian only and then let me know and I'll happily bow out. I for one haven't posted in another Christian thread for years as I think it's impolite to constantly impinge on Christian discussions in the Christian forum. That said I do post here.

So can you clarify if you're happy for atheists to continue to post what they don't believe in this thread or would you prefer we stopped?

Ekancone

Wicknight wrote: »

No, he asserts that he knows your version of "God" doesn't exist. There is a difference. He isn't saying he knows what is out there, simply that he knows enough to assert that it isn't what you believe.

I must add, its not just about Wolfy and Christianity. I consider all human interpretation of god/s to be equally wrong. At least the ones that say they 'know' which is the true way.

Galvasean

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm

Wow, another 'missing link'. Creationists always claim we haven't found any, but we seem to find at least one new one every year! :eek:

PDN

pH wrote: »

This thread has historically been an exception, if you as the new Christian mod would prefer that this thread is now Christian only and then let me know and I'll happily bow out. I for one haven't posted in another Christian thread for years as I think it's impolite to constantly impinge on Christian discussions in the Christian forum. That said I do post here.

So can you clarify if you're happy for atheists to continue to post what they don't believe in this thread or would you prefer we stopped?

I'm very happy for atheists to point out why they disagree with anything that another poster has stated. So, for example, you may want to point out what you see as inconsistencies in a post by Wolfsbane or by JC. You may also want to point out scientific evidence or physical phenomena that, in your opinion, invalidates their points.

What I'm trying to avoid is where people come on here and just say, "Well there is no God, so there!" The assertion that "If there is a God then he is unknowable" needs to be backed up by some philosophical or logical argument, otherwise it adds nothing to a discussion.

I hope you will understand that I am not trying to come on as a heavy mod - simply to keep things in line with the charter. I would see things as operating the same way (in a mirror image) on the A&A forum. If I think someone is misrepresenting Christian belief over there then I tend to respond. If I see a flaw in an argument over there then I should be allowed to pick at that flaw and expose what I see as inconsistencies. But if I simply log on to the A&A forum to say, "Well there is a God, so there!" then I would be trolling.

PDN

Popinjay wrote: »

My bold.

Were they tested?

No, why should they be? To my knowledge, in Ireland, we don't go randomly testing people for paranoid schizophrenia. It is an interesting concept, though. The Gardai could combine it with the roadblocks. They could stop your car, shine a torch on your windscreen to confirm you are taxed and insured, and then get the police psychiatrist to give you a quick once over to check you're sane.

People get tested for such illnesses because they manifest symptoms. Despite the best efforts of the former Soviet Union, it is not common practice to diagnose someone as mentally ill purely on the grounds that they believe God speaks to them.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I'm very happy for atheists to point out why they But if I simply log on to the A&A forum to say, "Well there is a God, so there!" then I would be trolling.

Not really, I think most of us would have a good laugh Contrast that with the charter-ban on doing the equivalent here, not to mention the race to be the first to find offense.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, why should they be?

Well, the obvious reason being that they are hearing voices in their head, which is a symptom of mental illness, normally caused by a chemical imbalance.

As a side did you, or anyone, recommend they see a doctor to rule out possible mental illness before accepting as authentic their direct messages from God?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

But if I simply log on to the A&A forum to say, "Well there is a God, so there!" then I would be trolling.

Christian posters do that all the time ... its normally followed by some dark warning about how we are turning away from God and it will all end in disaster :eek:

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

"Well there is a God, so there!" then I would be trolling.

How is that any different to what is posted by you guys? I understand that this is a Christianity forum, so if you want to stop people saying the opposite of the above, then fine. Why don't you oppose Wolfy saying that I'm going to burn in a pit of fire for eternity for not agreeing with him? Surely that is 'flaming'?

Popinjay

Wicknight wrote: »

Well, the obvious reason being that they are hearing voices in their head, which is a symptom of mental illness, normally caused by a chemical imbalance.

As a side did you, or anyone, recommend they see a doctor to rule out possible mental illness before accepting as authentic their direct messages from God?

Blast! Beaten to it. I suppose I got there first earlier. To be honest though PDN, if anyone says they hear any voice, they should immediately be tested for mental illness. It's one question psychologists ask almost every patient that they meet (personal experience and subsequent conversations with other practising psychologist friends and acquaintances).

This personal experience by the way was not because I expressed any symptoms of a mental illness but was asked to for entrance into a place I used to work. I have a letter stating that I'm a perfectly sane, normal and well-adjusted human being. Part of the reason I got that was that I was able to say that No, I don't hear voices.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well, the obvious reason being that they are hearing voices in their head, which is a symptom of mental illness, normally caused by a chemical imbalance.

Hearing voices is one symptom of many. Most responsible doctors would try to see if a variety of symtoms were involved.

Coughing can be a symptom of lung cancer - but we do not send somebody to get x-rayed every time they clear their throat.

As a side did you, or anyone, recommend they see a doctor to rule out possible mental illness before accepting as authentic their direct messages from God?

We do not simply accept such a claim as authentic. If anyone claims that God is saying something (irrespective of whether they refer to an audible voice, an inner conviction, or simply that God put good ideas in their head) we test it by Scripture. Does it square with Biblical teaching (obviously using standard theological grammatical-historical interpretation of Scripture rather than the Wicknightian variety)?

Even then there is still a "wait and see" attitude. Maybe they did hear from God. Maybe they didn't. Time will tell.