Ask a Traditional Catholic

[Randy Carson]

No, as I said, that is not my experience. I believe that others (and not many) do have a more conversational experience of God.

Most Christians do not.

No. I would rather focus on the evidence for the resurrection that you can verify for yourself.

[Longhorn]

I mean, does god talk to you?

No, as I said, that is not my experience. I believe that others (and not many) do have a more conversational experience of God.

Most Christians do not.

Ok. If a christian told you that god has spoken to them, would you believe them? Would you believe me if I told you god has spoken to me, when I was a believer?

[Randy Carson]

No, as I said, that is not my experience. I believe that others (and not many) do have a more conversational experience of God.

Most Christians do not.

Ok. If a christian told you that god has spoken to them, would you believe them? Would you believe me if I told you god has spoken to me, when I was a believer?

My response would be, "Tell me more."

Because I'm open to the possibility that God may have spoken.

[Metis]

Because I'm open to the possibility that God may have spoken.

Galatians 1:8: But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!

[Randy Carson]

Because I'm open to the possibility that God may have spoken.

Galatians 1:8: But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!

Amen! Catholics love that verse.

However, how does that apply to the person who hears from God in prayer? Is it your assumption that God would say something to me privately that is opposed to the gospel found in Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture? If so, why?

[Longhorn]

Ok. If a christian told you that god has spoken to them, would you believe them? Would you believe me if I told you god has spoken to me, when I was a believer?

My response would be, "Tell me more."

Because I'm open to the possibility that God may have spoken.

And what would the criteria be, for you to decide whether it was real or not?

[Randy Carson]

My response would be, "Tell me more."

Because I'm open to the possibility that God may have spoken.

And what would the criteria be, for you to decide whether it was real or not?

It's called discernment. I would consider:

1. What I know of God from scripture
2. What I know of God from tradition
3. What I know of God from personal experience
4. What I know of God from the experiences of others (canonized saints, biographies and autobiographies of other Christians, and personal friends)
5. What I may hear from the Holy Spirit regarding the experience that is related to me.

Finally, I may decide to withhold any judgment until I see some evident fruit.

[Longhorn]

So, IOW, the only 'evidence' you'd consider valid is that which confirms your claims. That's confirmation bias. What of the others? Lying? Delusional?

Why does god let them do that?

[Randy Carson]

So, IOW, the only 'evidence' you'd consider valid is that which confirms your claims. That's confirmation bias. What of the others? Lying? Delusional?

Why does god let them do that?

Suppose you were a constitutional scholar. Respected among your peers. Author of books. Papers. Professor at a prestigious university. Advisor to presidents and supreme court justices.

Got the picture in mind?

Now, suppose further that you are being interviewed on Meet the Press, and some yahoo makes some remarks about something being "unconstitutional".

Would you correct the person based on what you know to be true about the constitution? Would that be confirmation bias?

Look, we all base our evaluations of what others tell us based upon what we know. Either things "fit" or they don't.

Now, either you want to share some experience or you don't.

What I do with it should not matter to you.

[Jenny A]

And what would the criteria be, for you to decide whether it was real or not?

It's called discernment. I would consider:

1. What I know of God from scripture
2. What I know of God from tradition
3. What I know of God from personal experience
4. What I know of God from the experiences of others (canonized saints, biographies and autobiographies of other Christians, and personal friends)
5. What I may hear from the Holy Spirit regarding the experience that is related to me.

Finally, I may decide to withhold any judgment until I see some evident fruit.

The interesting thing is that most religions do something just like this to determine if experiences from god are real or of the devil etc.  The thing is that they use different scripture, traditions, personal experiences, and their own visions.  And they would dismiss your experiences just as you would dismiss theirs.  

Some of these people's scripture overlaps with yours such as the Jews, Muslims, JWs, and Mormons.  Some of them don't share any scripture with you at all, though they have tons of scripture, like the Hindus.  Others have an entirely oral tradition such as the Navajos, Zuni, and Hopi.  Not surprisingly Navajos tend to have experiences of gods that match the Navajo faith, Mormons have experiences that match the Mormon faith, and Hindus have experiences that match the Hindu faith.  

Interestingly, it is on this very basis that the Jews rejected both Jesus and Paul.  The messages of Jesus and Paul did not match Jewish traditions and experiences, or scripture. And it's on this basis that Paul first rejected Jesus.  

The fact that whole traditions of people can follow your system and come to completely different results is because it is a faith confirming rather than truth seeking system.  What you are discerning is whether it feels like good Catholic doctrine or not.  And all the Hindi is doing is determining whether it is good Hindi doctrine.  Rationally, there's nothing to choose between you and no reason not to think both of you are deluded.