Christ Centered Gamer

How do people who believe that they have received a communication from God through prayer explain the fact that people all over the world, in hundreds or thousands of different religions, also believe they are receiving communication from their deities, are receiving conflicting answers to their prayers, and seem to be equally convinced of the genuineness of that experience?

Spiders?

Truthseeker wrote:How do people who believe that they have received a communication from God through prayer explain the fact that people all over the world, in hundreds or thousands of different religions, also believe they are receiving communication from their deities, are receiving conflicting answers to their prayers, and seem to be equally convinced of the genuineness of that experience?

By not presuming to judge other's word or experiences.

Chozon1 wrote:Spiders?

Definitely. I used to have a pet tarantula...

Is it possible to judge my own experiences without judging the experiences of others? That is, if I conclude that one of my experiences was genuine (I was actually experiencing what I thought I was experiencing), aren't I necessarily concluding that the inconsistent experiences of others are non-genuine?

Truthseeker wrote:Is it possible to judge my own experiences without judging the experiences of others? That is, if I conclude that one of my experiences was genuine (I was actually experiencing what I thought I was experiencing), aren't I necessarily concluding that the inconsistent experiences of others are non-genuine?

There is no need for that kind of dichotomy. Both sets can be genuine.

Are you saying contradictory realities can simultaneously be true? If not, then I don't think I understand what you mean.

Truthseeker wrote:Are you saying contradictory realities can simultaneously be true? If not, then I don't think I understand what you mean.

I'm saying you're making a set of assumptions that may be false. Namely, that two religious experiences of different beliefs must necessarily be mutually exclusive, that they couldn't come from the same source, and that it can be evaluated from a third party perspective.

I guess I share TS's confusion or misunderstanding of what you're saying. Two conflicting beliefs are by definition mutually exclusive. Both cannot be right, unless you deny the existence of an objective, universal truth altogether.

If you're talking about people of a differing religion having a "genuine spiritual experience" but misinterpreting from the context of their own religion and that's really from the same God you worship, how can you be sure that you're right and they're misunderstood, and not the other way around?

ArchAngel wrote:I guess I share TS's confusion or misunderstanding of what you're saying. Two conflicting beliefs are by definition mutually exclusive. Both cannot be right, unless you deny the existence of an objective, universal truth altogether.

The beliefs may be mutually exclusive, but the message may not be, and no... it isn't necessary to deny objective truth.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, the Mormon doctrine is the objective truth.

Now imagine an island somewhere in the South Pacific where there's one and only one Christian living there. Can you imagine a scenario in which the Lord might speak to this man from within the framework of his beliefs? He may well have a perfectly valid, perfectly authentic religious experience from God in such a way as to reach him, and have him do God's will and he sees it as utterly compatible with his Catholic beliefs.

Mormons believe we have the truth, but not an exclusive lock on every aspect of it.

You guys are judging people's beliefs, their experiences and their authenticity by a set of rules you want to impose. "God doesn't operate within my framework, thus He doesn't exist and anyone claiming to have had contact with him is delusional/lying/misled."

ArchAngel wrote: If you're talking about people of a differing religion having a "genuine spiritual experience" but misinterpreting from the context of their own religion and that's really from the same God you worship, how can you be sure that you're right and they're misunderstood, and not the other way around?

Didn't say that either.

ArcticFox wrote:You guys are judging people's beliefs, their experiences and their authenticity by a set of rules you want to impose.

Yes. Those rules are called logic.

"God doesn't operate within my framework, thus He doesn't exist and anyone claiming to have had contact with him is delusional/lying/misled."

Not at all. But we have seen many varied and conflicting beliefs on who or what God is, or other explanations of spirituality. They can't all be right. They directly conflict each other at points. And the followers of those belief stand strongly behind them, claiming genuine spiritual experiences, too. We are asking how you differentiate.

Didn't say that either.

But you kind of just did. God came and gave a real spiritual experience in the framework of that person's belief.
But what part of his beliefs are true and what are not? How do you verify?
Everybody can't be right, so how do you tell who's wrong?

I have a Java question for you, master.


I want to implement a variation on the visitor pattern to perform an API call analysis on some Java code. What I was thinking was making a visitor object, and passing it to every function and have it record the calls to an API that the function makes. At the end of the program (Or earlier if I say so), it will divide the number of calls by the time elapsed to get an approximate call/second ratio.

I know Java uses pass-by-value, so I'm not entirely sure how I could pass an object to each function to have it record the information it needs. If this were C++ (or Objective-C), I'd just pass the object by reference and be done with it.

Is there an equivalent method of accomplishing this in Java, or will I have to rethink my implementation?


Or even better, do you know of a way to calculate an API call rate in Java? I've been unable to find a workable solution, so being the brash programmer I am, I decided to make my own way of doing it.

ArchAngel wrote:Yes. Those rules are called logic.

Oh, get over yourself

ArchAngel wrote: Not at all. But we have seen many varied and conflicting beliefs on who or what God is, or other explanations of spirituality. They can't all be right. They directly conflict each other at points. And the followers of those belief stand strongly behind them, claiming genuine spiritual experiences, too. We are asking how you differentiate.

And my answer is I don't presume to make that judgment for others. I can only evaluate my own experience and act upon it.

ArchAngel wrote: But you kind of just did. God came and gave a real spiritual experience in the framework of that person's belief.
But what part of his beliefs are true and what are not? How do you verify?
Everybody can't be right, so how do you tell who's wrong?

It doesn't matter. We can only do what we know to be right and let the rest attend to itself. God may very well have reasons for strengthening the convictions of people whose understanding of the Gospel is different from mine. So what? I think Martin Luther was divinely inspired, but he was no Mormon. He served God in the way that was needed when it was needed. I think many Popes have also been guided, at least partly, by God. Doesn't matter that those people have a different understanding of God than I do. They served Him the way He needed them to. Period.

Do you think God would ignore a resource like a church that has over a billion members? Do you suppose that I should believe that almost two thousand years of history went by with the voice of the Holy Spirit silenced? That makes no sense. How can I claim that God loves every single one of us the same but then turn around and say that He refuses counsel to people who were raised as Muslims in a place like Egypt or Afghanistan? Would it be easier for you to get me to say that I believe that a sincere Catholic priest in Italy doesn't have the same access to his Creator as I do? That's absurd.

Deepfreeze32 wrote:I have a Java question for you, master.


I want to implement a variation on the visitor pattern to perform an API call analysis on some Java code. What I was thinking was making a visitor object, and passing it to every function and have it record the calls to an API that the function makes. At the end of the program (Or earlier if I say so), it will divide the number of calls by the time elapsed to get an approximate call/second ratio.

I know Java uses pass-by-value, so I'm not entirely sure how I could pass an object to each function to have it record the information it needs. If this were C++ (or Objective-C), I'd just pass the object by reference and be done with it.

Is there an equivalent method of accomplishing this in Java, or will I have to rethink my implementation?


Or even better, do you know of a way to calculate an API call rate in Java? I've been unable to find a workable solution, so being the brash programmer I am, I decided to make my own way of doing it.

Java uses pass by value a little differently than you might think... I could explain it, but I suck at that, so here's a link to a good article on the subject:

http://javadude.com/articles/passbyvalue.htm

Learned a few things from it myself!

Well, that was a lot more helpful than one of my coworkers was. XD


How do you feel about Atomic Variables (In the Java context)?

I never really use them since I don't generally get into multi-threaded programming.