Monologues with God vs. Conversations with God

Forum conversation dated 12 October 2020.

“I once had this idea that the MINW group was a group of people who talk with God. But that’s not the case.”
Does anyone else have such expectations? Or feel disappointed that it isn’t like that, or that they themselves haven’t achieved it, even after several years of work? I admit that I have never promised anyone that God would say anything to them. It never even crossed my mind. Perhaps those who became disappointed had similar expectations. I didn’t understand how one could walk away. Now I understand others’ motivations better, including the motivations of their Souls.

Konrad Jaszowski:
If there is no such conversation, then maybe there is a specific reason for it. God may communicate with us in ways other than through conversation. I think He may leave traces for those who want to see them. If every second person could talk with God, what would come of it?

Sławomir Majda:
Everyone should be able to. I don’t know what it would lead to.

Beata Cichosz:
I try to talk to God every day when I’m driving to work. For someone who doesn’t do it, it would probably sound strange—like talking to oneself…

Małgorzata Krata:
For many people, “talking to God” means delivering a monologue.

Sławomir Majda:
God always responds.

Beata Cichosz:
In a way it’s a monologue, but I do feel something.

Karolina Blitek:
“God may communicate with us in ways other than through conversation.” Theoretically, yes. Practice is a different matter. Some people claim this, but if you asked them for even one response from God that was not a spoken word and not any kind of signal that could be clearly identified as coming from Him rather than being a confabulation, no one would be able to provide one.

When I was a child in primary school, I used to think that seeing blades of grass arranged in the shape of a heart after prayer was God’s answer and a sign from Him alone. This is how similar confabulations work—based on overinterpretation. I’m not convinced by anything that isn’t unambiguous. That’s why it would be better to hear.

This kind of belief also leads to confabulations and to forcing divine meaning into everything—like Christians seeing a sign of Jesus on a burnt toast. Then it is interpretation, detached from facts, that turns something into an answer from God, even though in reality it is not.

In fact, certainty only comes when one asks and receives an ANSWER, so it’s understandable that nothing else satisfies people.

It’s different when someone prays for healing, turns to God, and then sees that someone’s health improves shortly afterward without any other treatment. Like with cancer—then it’s clear that it must have been God. But in other situations, when one asks open-ended questions or says:
“God, please guide me on what to do in this matter,”
one expects some kind of instructions.

This is not about outsourcing everything to God—that would halt personal development, which He wants. One should develop one’s own light, not merely bask in divine light and ask God to hand us the TV remote or walk our path for us instead of showing us the direction. It’s not about asking God to open doors, but to give us the key so that we open them ourselves and take a step in our development toward becoming who we are meant to be according to Him. It’s about guidance. Hearing would be beneficial.

I used to think that everyone clairvoyant here aimed to hear God, but I don’t know how it really is.

Guidance from Sławek may help even regarding divine answers, just as intentions from Monika encouraged him to work with them. But if someone is to rely on others constantly and be dependent on what someone else reveals about God despite doing their own work, it can lead to immense frustration.

If someone writes what God supposedly thinks, and does not clarify that they neither see nor hear Him but base it on understanding His nature or on others’ stories, it’s natural that people assume that such a person hears God. It would be necessary to remind people that this is not the case—but it’s difficult to repeat it constantly, as new people join and only see current content.

Zosia certainly left the forum disappointed that she could not hear God. She openly wrote that it mattered to her. That expectation is normal and obvious. For me too, hearing God was a priority.

Małgorzata Krata:
And what if you still don’t hear Him after, say, 10 or 20 years?

Karolina Blitek:
Then it becomes a concern about what I am still doing wrong. I will know it works if I ask for help with something and see results. When there’s nothing else, even a small sign is something. It wouldn’t be perfect, but still better than receiving no answer at all.

If I didn’t take any other actions and still saw results—like healing—it would be clear that God acted, because there would be no other explanation. Some things cannot be explained as placebo.

A tangible flow of light into one’s energy might also be understood as His response, because other beings don’t have that kind of influence.

But I doubt it would take 10 years. If I truly committed and did everything possible, I think I would already hear Him—but there is a conflict of interests. I doubt that God would want for me exactly what I want for myself. And there are people in this world who say “Thy will be done,” and those who say “My will be done,” as Roman Nacht put it.

Hearing would likely be better, and it’s worth striving for—even if someone has doubts about whether they could meet God’s expectations, maintain it, or lose it. At least they would know what it is like. Their relationship with God would become more personal. They could confront their assumptions with reality and verify them in direct contact. They might discover they were wrong about His will or capabilities.

Of course, one could lose that ability if they diverged from God—nothing is unconditional—but even if lost, it could be regained through reconciliation with God. It cannot be lost forever.

There is nothing wrong with having doubts if one has no basis for assuming a positive outcome. As Leszek Żądło said, God rewards trust—and if you don’t try, you won’t know. It’s not difficult to trust when conditions are easy; that’s not the point.

If God does not claim to have reasons not to speak to someone, then perhaps such reasons do not exist—unless He withholds that information for another purpose. If God had no reluctance to reveal Himself, then the blockage must lie elsewhere, not in His will.

For example, it could lie in extrasensory perception limitations, possibly linked to the body. Monika Czyżewska said that clairvoyance is connected to the human capacity to experience peak states, which may be rooted as early as the gamete stage—or even earlier, in the mother or grandmother—and later passed on. Blockages in experiencing such states may arise in childhood.

Perhaps the solution lies in developing the ability to experience peak states, or in addressing generational trauma (not necessarily one’s own), or childhood trauma.

And development likely does not end with hearing God. That might help, but there is still much more to experience—not only spiritually but also personally. It is probably better to live with an elevated quality of experience, though even that is not the end—perhaps only the beginning.

Opublikowano: 28/04/2026
Autor: Sławomir Majda
Kateogrie: God

Comments