OK. We are not allowed to test God. Are we also forbidden to test the possible IMPOSTORS, who only claim to be God?

[thistle]

Luke 4:12 Jesus said to him in reply, “It also says, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.’”

Matt 4:7 Jesus answered him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.’”

 

[goout]

Zaccheus:

“Testing” God.

Judges 6: 36-40. Gideon had already seen miraculous things earlier in the chapter, but he insisted on the experiment. “Lord let this wool fleece be wet and the ground around it be dry.” And it was so.
Then he said: “Lord this time let the fleece be dry and the ground be wet.”
Gideon was trying experiments on the Lord. This is what we mean by “testing God”.

God was patient with Gideon but don’t do that.

The question is “why not”? If one is not allowed “testing”, that is demanding blind acceptance and blind obedience. Not my cup of tea. God gave us the power of thinking and the power of reasoning, and then demands that we suspend these powers for blind faith? Is that how a perfect being would behave? I don’t think so. This is how a con man would behave… who merely says: “Trust me!”

Faith and reason are not two separate disciplines in a whole person. Faith and reason work together in an integrated fashion.
Separating them only results in confusion.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Luke 4:12 Jesus said to him in reply, “It also says, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.’”

Matt 4:7 Jesus answered him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.’”

The question is: “How do we separate God from the impostors?” If we cannot perform a test?

 

[goout]

thistle:

Luke 4:12 Jesus said to him in reply, “It also says, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.’”

Matt 4:7 Jesus answered him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.’”

The question is: “How do we separate God from the impostors?” If we cannot perform a test?

Oh! that kind of test. I see now.

It’s not rocket science.
Seek. Ask. Listen. Read. Learn. Talk to others. Listen some more.

How do you arrive at any piece of faith? Do you believe your spouse loves you? How do you “know” that?
Do you test her/him every day so that you might have your certainty?
How does that go over with your spouse, that you need to test him/her?

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Seek. Ask. Listen. Read. Learn. Talk to others. Listen some more.

Been there. Done it. Have a T-shirt to prove it. Nothing even happens. I hope you will not continue with something like: “You were not honest in seeking. And you did not wait long enough. And you can’t demand God to jump through hoops.” Because I heard all that, and more.

Do you test her/him every day so that you might have your certainty?

The existence of my spouse is beyond doubt. There is no need for “faith”. Every minute of our lives is an informal test of “love”. And we both pass that test every minute.

 

[poche]

If someone is claiming to be God then he is an impostor.

 

[goout]

Ok. so you don’t think it’s a fruitful exercise to pursue God’s existence.
Why are you asking the question then?

It comes off as more of an accusation than a sincere question.
(just as an aside…these are perennial questions that have been asked since the beginning of human existence.)

And in regard to your spouse. I am not asking about her molecular presence.
I am asking about the quality of relationship.
If you are asking about the existence of God, we are talking about relationship, not materialism. If you are questioning the existence of purple unicorns you have a point.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

If someone is claiming to be God then he is an impostor.

Well, that takes care of Jesus.

It comes off as more of an accusation than a sincere question.

Yes, obviously I am not sincere. What else is new?

 

[goout]

poche:

If someone is claiming to be God then he is an impostor.

Well, that takes care of Jesus.

It comes off as more of an accusation than a sincere question.

Yes, obviously I am not sincere. What else is new?

What is the point and purpose of your question. Please be concise for honest communication.
Catholic believe it is perfectly fine to question God…to ponder his existence, to push the boundaries of faith. So you have a flawed premise in the question.
(in addition to that …you don’t believe in God. So you are assuming you know intimately the beliefs of others, when you are in fact throwing up straw men of your own making)

In addition to that, if you don’t believe in god(s), the concept of impostors is meaningless.

What is the point of your question, and what do you hope to gain from it?

 

[Zaccheus]

These demons are very incompetent.

The demons are obsessed with hate, which does tend to warp the judgement.

sallybutler:

I always thought testing God went along the lines of If You do this to me, I will continue to believe in You. Definitely a no no.

A bit more complicated. It would be like this: “If you would manifest your existence, I will start to love and serve you. After all, how could I love and serve you, if I cannot be SURE that you exist?” What is wrong with that? Yes, I am aware of the “Blessed are who have not seen and yet believe”, but that is not something I can accept.

There is nothing wrong with trying to establish whether God exists, if you have serious doubts. The problem comes in when you try to impose conditions on God.

(A) God, if you’re real please help me to discover the truth.

(B) God, if you’re real then put in an appearance to me. Show yourself in a form I can see and hear. Maybe answer a question or two. If you meet this condition I’ll believe in you.

When we say “Don’t put God to the test” we’re talking about things like my example B.

The question is “why not”? If one is not allowed “testing”, that is demanding blind acceptance and blind obedience. Not my cup of tea. God gave us the power of thinking and the power of reasoning, and then demands that we suspend these powers for blind faith? Is that how a perfect being would behave? I don’t think so. This is how a con man would behave… who merely says: “ Trust me!”

Excluded middle. The choices are not limited to telling God what to do and blind obedience.

God gave us minds and expects us to use them. Learn what you can. Examine what evidence you can find. Apply logic and reason. Research the subject. God approves.

Pray to God asking for help in learning and understanding. “God, if you’re real then help me discover your reality.” God will approve.

“Okay God, if you exist then give me a vision.”
Or: “All right God, if you exist here’s a list of things I want to see happen. Do these things in this order and I’ll admit you’re real.” God does not approve.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

There is nothing wrong with trying to establish whether God exists, if you have serious doubts. The problem comes in when you try to impose conditions on God…

(A) God, if you’re real please help me to discover the truth.

(B) God, if you’re real then put in an appearance to me. Show yourself in a form I can see and hear. Maybe answer a question or two. If you meet this condition I’ll believe in you.

When we say “Don’t put God to the test” we’re talking about things like my example B.

I understand your point. Here is my problem.

(A) is vague, so it cannot be decided what should happen and when should it happen.
(B) is precise, so know if it happened or not.

Do you see the significance of the distinction?

 

[Zaccheus]

Zaccheus:

There is nothing wrong with trying to establish whether God exists, if you have serious doubts. The problem comes in when you try to impose conditions on God…

(A) God, if you’re real please help me to discover the truth.

(B) God, if you’re real then put in an appearance to me. Show yourself in a form I can see and hear. Maybe answer a question or two. If you meet this condition I’ll believe in you.

When we say “Don’t put God to the test” we’re talking about things like my example B.

I understand your point. Here is my problem.

(A) is vague, so it cannot be decided what should happen and when should it happen.
(B) is precise, so know if it happened or not.

Do you see the significance of the distinction?

I see the distinction, but I was talking about a different distinction.
A is about asking God for help and leaving it to God --if he exists, yes, I know–and B is about trying to give orders to God.

 

[Zaccheus]

goout:

Seek. Ask. Listen. Read. Learn. Talk to others. Listen some more.

Been there. Done it. Have a T-shirt to prove it. Nothing even happens. I hope you will not continue with something like: “You were not honest in seeking. And you did not wait long enough. And you can’t demand God to jump through hoops.” Because I heard all that, and more.

Do you test her/him every day so that you might have your certainty?

The existence of my spouse is beyond doubt. There is no need for “faith”. Every minute of our lives is an informal test of “love”. And we both pass that test every minute.

I won’t say those things. I’m sorry to hear others have said them to you. The fact that you don’t yet have your answer does not prove that you weren’t honestly seeking.
None the less you can’t command God. Trying to do so just is not going to work.

 

[TheLittleLady]

If I every met anyone who claimed to be God, I would not believe them. No need to test them.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

I see the distinction, but I was talking about a different distinction.
A is about asking God for help and leaving it to God --if he exists, yes, I know–and B is about trying to give orders to God.

There is no demand, or order involved in either one. Both are petitions, requests or prayers, but the first one cannot be verified, while the second one can. That is the difference.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Scripture is clear.

The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, goodness, temperance, faith.

By this will all men know you are my disciples, that you love one another.

Let your light so shine before men that they see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

Pretty clear.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

If I every met anyone who claimed to be God, I would not believe them. No need to test them.

That takes care of Jesus.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Your original question did not say you specifically doubt Christ.

So, what evidence will you accept?

 

[Zaccheus]

Zaccheus:

I see the distinction, but I was talking about a different distinction.
A is about asking God for help and leaving it to God --if he exists, yes, I know–and B is about trying to give orders to God.

There is no demand, or order involved in either one. Both are petitions, requests or prayers, but the first one cannot be verified, while the second one can. That is the difference.

If I try to learn whether God exists, and I discover evidence that fully convinces me, then my question is answered.
If as part of seeking I pray “God, if you exist please show me that you exist” and later on I find that convincing evidence, then I have my answer. How is that not verification?

For clarity: I believe when you say “cannot be verified” you mean there is no way to test whether the first petition has been successful. If that is not what you meant then I’m sorry for misunderstanding you.

If it is what you meant then I say that if you end up convinced by the evidence that God is real, then you have your verification.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

If as part of seeking I pray “God, if you exist please show me that you exist” and later on I find that convincing evidence, then I have my answer. How is that not verification?

Of course. The only problem is that it has been tried, and nothing ever happened.

For clarity: I believe when you say “cannot be verified” you mean there is no way to test whether the first petition has been successful. If that is not what you meant then I’m sorry for misunderstanding you.

You understand me just fine. The problem is that it was an open-ended petition, not something that can be evaluated any time. It can always be “pushed back”.