God is a whole lot to me, he has helped get out of my deepest holes, when i want to say something about that in the internet, a lot of times i get the 'don't preach' treatment, like a pest that needs to be squashed, a cheap proselitiser/snake oil salesman pestering everyone, is disheartening. I thought we could talk about everything specially adults, if we can have respect for each other.
-
Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
- Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral
'Preaching'
- Thread starter NB79
- Start date
- Status
I don't know why anyone would call it "preaching" if you're purely recounting your own personal experience with God, religion, etc if it's absent from suggesting others follow the same path. You should be free to share your own personal experiences. I've had very bad experiences that have significantly impacted my life to this day in negative ways but I would never "preach" that anyone who is religious should abandon their faith. I don't understand it, but that doesn't mean I'd tell people not to believe.
One thing that maybe you could share about your own personal experience with God: I can't understand why when anyone says that "God speaks to me", etc it's always 100% of the time "speaking" to the person in that person's own head/mind. It's impossible for me to not at least question whether or not it's the person's own imagination.
One thing that maybe you could share about your own personal experience with God: I can't understand why when anyone says that "God speaks to me", etc it's always 100% of the time "speaking" to the person in that person's own head/mind. It's impossible for me to not at least question whether or not it's the person's own imagination.
Because when you are 'born again' the spirit of God comes into you, and then onward makes you understand things, if you don't have it, you can't even imagine how would it be like to experience that because is totally outside your experience.
Last edited:
While I now regret submitting it in this forum, I recently posted that God has communicated with me several times. So I have nothing to lose by answering from my own experience.
Another person can never know the validity of a person’s revelation. I’ve heard recounts I thought were of the Spirit, and others not, but I only claim to ‘know’ if Scripture specifically excludes it. That said…
I’ve never heard a voice. My most specific experiences share this feature; if you think of consciousness as a lake, you know we just float on the top, so we’re unaware of what’s going on below us. To me, there is a sudden single impact down there. I somehow know to pay attention. The impact radiates out and resonates with various parts of my being, but begins to resolve as a complete thought, as opposed to the way we normally formulate thoughts. So far, I’ve never had reason to doubt that it was of the Spirit.
Maybe those are the types of things you’re asking about. Like most people of faith, I also have frequent communication with God, without the dramatic flourish. In prayer, God reveals himself to believers in very personal ways. Since humans tend to communicate through words, it’s common to call this talking with God.
How does this relate to the thread? Because I just gave a factual answer to a literal question, and there’s a very good chance that some will read this and say I am preaching.
Thank you for sharing. I did not take anything you wrote to be you "preaching".
I should rephrase the question that I posed asking rhetorically, why when someone "hears" God or God "speaks" to them, it's 100% of the time, subjective. I did not mean "hear" as literally audibly. I mean to include your example of a thought, or a feeling, a conviction, a knowing, etc. My point in my rhetorical question is that 100% of the time it's internal and only to the person themselves. The challenging aspect of this for many people is that there are so many other things that are also only internal. People have thoughts, feelings, convictions, a knowing, imaginary friends, hearing voices in their heads, etc. It's difficult for some people to refuse to even consider that God communicating with a person may very well just be a fabrication of the person's own mind and nothing more.
And i think this is one of the more 'tolerant' sites, just post something on for example reddit... don't do it, lol.
Yeah, it's common nowadays for people to reject God because it makes them feel intellectually superior. It's interesting how often people confuse conformity with intelligence, especially when conforming to the views of people they respect or people from whom they want respect.
Au Naturel
Au Naturel
Preaching is usually considered more aggressive than just talking about your own experience. It is a matter of how hard you push your ideas onto others.
Some people really get into religion, and it becomes a special interest. People tend to wax on about their special interests, and if the people you are talking to aren't interested or even hostile, it doesn't come off well. I don't see a lot of point in going beyond not reading a post or saying, "Thanks, but not interested," and closing the door.
There are people who get disproportionately annoyed when others proselytize at them.
Some people really get into religion, and it becomes a special interest. People tend to wax on about their special interests, and if the people you are talking to aren't interested or even hostile, it doesn't come off well. I don't see a lot of point in going beyond not reading a post or saying, "Thanks, but not interested," and closing the door.
There are people who get disproportionately annoyed when others proselytize at them.
If I butt into someone's conversation and tell them they should do what I feel is right based on my beliefs, then I am preaching. If I start a thread about my own experiences with God, no one is obligated to respond in any way. It would be inappropriate for someone to complain about preaching.
I was a believer for a long time, but some bad stuff happened to me, and i 'slid' from seeking God, i was addicted to porn and didn't seek God much, then i decided to come back to follow God proper, i asked for forgiveness etc, and prayed a lot to quit porn, God freed me from it, since years i'm clean of any of that, after a while i still felt guilty for those years, and that gave me anguish, then i felt how God touched me comforting me, saying that i was forgiven, and that i should keep going, God also got rid of OCD like intrusive thoughts that tormented me, never had them again, and other things.
Okay, I see your point. I also didn’t catch that the question was rhetorical, so you aren’t really looking for an answer.
For my own part, as I said, I have no problem considering whether or not another person’s experience is of God. In fact, I believe we have a responsibility to ‘test the spirits’, as that’s what I find in the New Testament. I can’t vouch whether a majority of Christians have a hard time with that process, but as I said, I even submit my own experiences to the Scriptures. Not that even that process is foolproof, but it is prudent.
Levitator
Well-Known Member
I don't like cheap preaching, either, like the kind of praise music that says "Jesus" every other word, because ultimately, it's just the performer praising himself and taking credit for knowing how to say his name. Over and over again.
What I do respect, is people who are finding meaning in faith, because faith is more than just a word or a name. If you're talking about what God said to you, or how God guided you, or something he did for you, then I think that's excellent, and nobody has any business shutting you up. It's as you said, though, they will beat you down because they're not full of God, they're full of something else.
Great post, but I’ll play the angel’s advocate. Sitting in a pew, it’s easy to see musicians as ‘performers’. But I have also gotten to know some Christian musicians who are very passionate about their faith and their ministry. Just like the modern pastor, many are there for personal reasons other than spiritual service.
Personally, I think music has become a distraction in many congregations, way too much like the idolatry we see in the music world in general, and many church musicians are glory hunters. But, in my opinion, music can be a very valuable spiritual ingredient in worship, and there are many musicians out there who understand that.
So, while I agree in general, I want to give a shout out to those many dedicated church musicians who, after all, can only lead us to water but can’t make us drink.
Also, your post is interesting in that, while many comments are narrowing in what should be considered ‘preaching’, you have expanded the term to include uninspired/uninspiring music. Interesting, and I see why you might say that, as it can be much like uninspired preaching, so common these days.
I have to wonder if I’m an offender on this, when you talk about butting into a conversation.
I have zero experience with social media specifically, and suck at social grace in general. Maybe I butt in all the time. When I read a conversation in a thread in this forum, and think I have something of value to add, I just go ahead and toss in my two cents’ worth. Sometimes I think a conversation has become between two people, but almost always I assume that the conversation is being had publicly because it’s a public conversation.
So, if whether or not I’m preaching depends upon whether I accurately understand the the private nature of a publicly held conversation, then I suddenly have a new understanding of why some people like to label factual comments as ‘preaching’.
I would agree with that. IRL, a private conversation is usually distinguishable from a group discussion. Online, a truly private conversation should be done as a direct message. Otherwise by default it is a public discussion. Still, unless the discussion has indicated that personal moral opinions are sought, I would not start telling people what they must believe or do based on my beliefs.
I love seeing those types of posts. The religious experience is a big part of who many people are. Why would you hide that part of yourself, particularly when it is relevant to a thread topic? You aren't going out and telling people to stop whatever behavior they are doing or that their belief is wrong, you're just sharing a part of yourself.
The way I see it, not everyone is a fit for everyplace and that is OK. Before joining a site, I looked at Reddit, I looked at WP, and Facebook. I decided none of those were fits for me - they seemed too much on the "yay, I love being autistic!" side and generally seemed heavily tilted towards teenagers who already seemingly gave up on life before it began. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it is just not a fit for me personally.
Too early to say whether I am a fit for this place, but my point is, don't try and force yourself to fit into a virtual place. That never works out. And if being religious is an innate part of yourself, be respectful of others but don't hide that IMO. Matthew 5:15.
Thanks for the feedback. I’m sure the advice is sound. It does make me wonder how often a factual statement by one person is intended as insistence, and how often it is only perceived to be insistent by another. What with a statement of fact being by nature emphatic. Of course, that effect is doubtless magnified in the truly religious person, because in their hearts they believe that their convictions go far beyond mealy statements like, ‘I don’t know, I always believed that…’ as if truth were determined by human belief.
Good thread.
^ Can you give an example?
@Magna asked for an example…
Not sure which way to go, as there are many ways.
Say, for instance, (purely hypothetical situation) I am perusing a thread and notice that one of the commenters is laboring under a misconception about Scripture. Since I feel competent to opine, I state that, as opposed to idea A, Scripture tells us B.
This can trigger all sorts of responses, obviously including the old ‘he’s preaching!’ ejaculative. But in fact, posters all over the thread have been posting opinions with no more backing than ‘it seems to me’. Somehow - we won’t go into how - some people will always assume the religious poster is ‘foisting his morality’ and other such reactionary drivel. Again, all this happens while others are posting unsupported opinions with reckless abandon. It becomes clear (to me, I mean to say) that the reaction is the product of a bias against Christian thought, and not a rational response to the idea presented.
Therefore, the simple act of supplying a clarifying passage is seen by some as a vicious assault on their religion freedom (meaning their perceived right to live life without ever hearing any utterance of a religious theme).
One example of a simple statement of fact being interpreted as forceful and even belligerent.
Not sure which way to go, as there are many ways.
Say, for instance, (purely hypothetical situation) I am perusing a thread and notice that one of the commenters is laboring under a misconception about Scripture. Since I feel competent to opine, I state that, as opposed to idea A, Scripture tells us B.
This can trigger all sorts of responses, obviously including the old ‘he’s preaching!’ ejaculative. But in fact, posters all over the thread have been posting opinions with no more backing than ‘it seems to me’. Somehow - we won’t go into how - some people will always assume the religious poster is ‘foisting his morality’ and other such reactionary drivel. Again, all this happens while others are posting unsupported opinions with reckless abandon. It becomes clear (to me, I mean to say) that the reaction is the product of a bias against Christian thought, and not a rational response to the idea presented.
Therefore, the simple act of supplying a clarifying passage is seen by some as a vicious assault on their religion freedom (meaning their perceived right to live life without ever hearing any utterance of a religious theme).
One example of a simple statement of fact being interpreted as forceful and even belligerent.
- Status
New Threads
-
Why do people always seem so happy and positive in social settings?
- Started by mw2530
- Replies: 4
-
Making new friends might be easier this time because...- Started by Tony Ramirez
- Replies: 3
-
-
Anyone here is into Tales of Zestiria? I hope I am not alone- Started by XEmoCatX
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
Who say's we can't do small talk and conversations?
- Started by Tony Ramirez
- Replies: 7
-
-