Special Rules... Why?

[POI]

I don't subscribe to the notion that people receive divine revelation to the extent that the discussion suggests anyway. God doesn't talk to people like he did Moses. He doesn't tell them to go forth and convert the heathens running amok on internet forums. If someone tells me "God told me" or they received something through "divine revelation" I'm pretty sure they are lying or delusional. Or perhaps even under demonic influence.

For debate: Why give the Bible special circumstances, special privileges, special pleading, or special rules? Why not just apply the exact same reasoning in bold, as quoted above? Meaning, no one is receiving any revelation; direct or indirect. It's all instead self-deception/other.

[POI]

Below are your assertions from post 8. I'm keeping them as stickies, on the top, for reference:

A) "God still communicates today through His Son. (visions, dreams, words)"

B) "If the message holds up against love (and does not contradict Christ), then it could be, yes. If the message fails against love and contradicts Christ, then no."

C) "I don't know if I know how to explain to you what love is. Love forgives, love gives to the one in need, love serves others, love is kind, etc."

D) "But in the OT, there were false prophets... and true prophets. There was the Word of God; there were people who claimed to hear from God but did not... and there were people who DID hear and receive the Word of God."

Not with. From. But so what?

"So what" you ask? Your special exception looks to be an unreliable way to discern the authenticity of a genuine "Jesus message". Why? Start by addressing what you said in B) and C) above in the stickies:

How do you know what Christ thinks? Meaning, did he divulge anything and everything in the Bible about love? How would you know? Since you seem to have no problem using the OT as evidence, let's address. When God was telling group A to kill group B, you think the ones doing the killing thought they were authentic because of 'love'? Maybe or maybe not. But the over-arching point(s) I'm making is that a said message to you may, at the time, not be perceived as God's love or God's desires, but in actuality, IS God's desire. And if you want to say, "that's the OT, Jesus does not preach killing", I have to ask... Does Jesus agree or disagree with his father?

There were conditions attached in the OT as well.

What were those conditions, and how does one know those conditions were reliable?

Further, I said special rules/other, not conditions. (i.e.) Why give the Bible special circumstances, special privileges, special pleading, or special rules?

Again, why would I do that?

Because we know the self exists. We do not know that any external agency exists. And also, because we all talk to ourselves. Why add anything more? Is it merely because the Bible says so?

[tam]

Peace to you,

Below are your assertions from post 8. I'm keeping them as stickies, on the top, for reference:

A) "God still communicates today through His Son. (visions, dreams, words)"

B) "If the message holds up against love (and does not contradict Christ), then it could be, yes. If the message fails against love and contradicts Christ, then no."

C) "I don't know if I know how to explain to you what love is. Love forgives, love gives to the one in need, love serves others, love is kind, etc."

D) "But in the OT, there were false prophets... and true prophets. There was the Word of God; there were people who claimed to hear from God but did not... and there were people who DID hear and receive the Word of God."

Not with. From. But so what?

"So what" you ask? Your special exception looks to be an unreliable way to discern the authenticity of a genuine "Jesus message". Why?

1 - that is a condition, not a special exception.

2 - I never claimed that it could discern authenticity. Only that if something is from love and it does not contradict Christ, then it could indeed be from Him. I could know it is from Him if He confirms this to me, if I ask Him, and/or if the spirit in me bears witness that it is indeed true and from Him.

Your special exception in your OP was for people who believed God did once communicate directly, but who think that anyone today is delusional or lying if they claim God (or Christ) still communicates.

That does not apply to me so I think that you must be trying to come up with some other reason to find fault.

Start by addressing what you said in B) and C) above in the stickies:

How do you know what Christ thinks? Meaning, did he divulge anything and everything in the Bible about love? How would you know? Since you seem to have no problem using the OT as evidence, let's address. When God was telling group A to kill group B, you think the ones doing the killing thought they were authentic because of 'love'? Maybe or maybe not. But the over-arching point(s) I'm making is that a said message to you may, at the time, not be perceived as God's love or God's desires, but in actuality, IS God's desire. And if you want to say, "that's the OT, Jesus does not preach killing", I have to ask... Does Jesus agree or disagree with his father?

See now, this has nothing to do with the OP.

You could ask those same questions - how do you know it is God speaking - to anyone in the OT (if they were alive and present).

So there is no special exception; you are just questioning how a person comes to know if something is or is not from God (or His Son).

There were conditions attached in the OT as well.

What were those conditions, and how does one know those conditions were reliable?

Further, I said special rules, not conditions.

You're splitting hairs.

In the OT, if something did not happen that a prophet said would happen, a person would know it was not from God.

So that is a rule or condition.

Again, why would I do that?

Because we know the self exists. We do not know that any external agency exists. And also, because we all talk to ourselves. Why add anything more? Is it merely because the Bible says so?

You may not know that any external agency exists. I do. Not because the bible says so (faith existed before the bible existed). But because I (and others) have experience with Christ (and so also His Father), because I (and others) know Him (and so know also His Father).

You are certainly free to doubt that (as Purple Knight touched upon in his post), but your doubt changes nothing for me.

Peace again to you.

[POI]

Below are your assertions from post 8. I'm keeping them as stickies, on the top, for reference:

A) "God still communicates today through His Son. (visions, dreams, words)"

B) "If the message holds up against love (and does not contradict Christ), then it could be, yes. If the message fails against love and contradicts Christ, then no."

C) "I don't know if I know how to explain to you what love is. Love forgives, love gives to the one in need, love serves others, love is kind, etc."

D) "But in the OT, there were false prophets... and true prophets. There was the Word of God; there were people who claimed to hear from God but did not... and there were people who DID hear and receive the Word of God."

I never claimed that it could discern authenticity.

Yes you did. Right here....

You may not know that any external agency exists. I do. Not because the bible says so (faith existed before the bible existed). But because I (and others) have experience with Christ (and so also His Father), because I (and others) know Him (and so know also His Father).

and...

Only that if something is from love and it does not contradict Christ, then it could indeed be from Him. I could know it is from Him if He confirms this to me, if I ask Him, and/or if the spirit in me bears witness that it is indeed true and from Him.

*************************************

Only that if something is from love and it does not contradict Christ, then it could indeed be from Him. I could know it is from Him if He confirms this to me, if I ask Him, and/or if the spirit in me bears witness that it is indeed true and from Him.

But again, how are you to know if it is from Jesus's love, and not your own version of love? As I stated prior, maybe Jesus would ask you to do things in which you do not perceive as love, like in the OT.

How do you know there is any spirit, and it is not just instead you talking to you?

Your special exception in your OP was for people who believed God did once communicate directly, but who think that anyone today is delusional or lying if they claim God (or Christ) still communicates.

That does not apply to me so I think that you must be trying to come up with some other reason to find fault.

Negative. I ask: "why give the Bible special rules?" Please re-read my debate question(s) (i.e.):

For debate: Why give the Bible special circumstances, special privileges, special pleading, or special rules? Why not just apply the exact same reasoning in bold, as quoted above? Meaning, no one is receiving any revelation; direct or indirect. It's all instead self-deception/other.

See now, this has nothing to do with the OP.

You could ask those same questions - how do you know it is God speaking - to anyone in the OT (if they were alive and present).

So there is no special exception; you are just questioning how a person comes to know if something is or is not from God (or His Son).

Yes.

In the OT, if something did not happen that a prophet said would happen, a person would know it was not from God.

Why give the Bible special anything? If the Bible says it, then you believe it? Why?

You may not know that any external agency exists. I do. Not because the bible says so (faith existed before the bible existed). But because I (and others) have experience with Christ (and so also His Father), because I (and others) know Him (and so know also His Father).

What experience?

[tam]

Peace to you,

Below are your assertions from post 8. I'm keeping them as stickies, on the top, for reference:

A) "God still communicates today through His Son. (visions, dreams, words)"

B) "If the message holds up against love (and does not contradict Christ), then it could be, yes. If the message fails against love and contradicts Christ, then no."

C) "I don't know if I know how to explain to you what love is. Love forgives, love gives to the one in need, love serves others, love is kind, etc."

D) "But in the OT, there were false prophets... and true prophets. There was the Word of God; there were people who claimed to hear from God but did not... and there were people who DID hear and receive the Word of God."

I never claimed that it could discern authenticity.

Yes you did. Right here....

You may not know that any external agency exists. I do. Not because the bible says so (faith existed before the bible existed). But because I (and others) have experience with Christ (and so also His Father), because I (and others) know Him (and so know also His Father).

That does not follow, POI. Perhaps you misread 'it could discern' for 'i' could discern?

*************************************

Only that if something is from love and it does not contradict Christ, then it could indeed be from Him. I could know it is from Him if He confirms this to me, if I ask Him, and/or if the spirit in me bears witness that it is indeed true and from Him.

But again, how are you to know if it is from Jesus's love, and not your own version of love?

Love is love.

What is the point of your question? Please re-read point B) and note the full quote.

How do you know there is any spirit, and it is not just you talking to you?

Because I know His voice; because I do not know the things that the Spirit (Christ) is teaching; because of the wisdom from the Spirit (His wisdom, not my own).

Your special exception in your OP was for people who believed God did once communicate directly, but who think that anyone today is delusional or lying if they claim God (or Christ) still communicates.

That does not apply to me so I think that you must be trying to come up with some other reason to find fault.

Negative. I ask: "why give the Bible special rules?" Please re-read my debate question(s) (i.e.):

For debate: Why give the Bible special circumstances, special privileges, special pleading, or special rules? Why not just apply the exact same reasoning in bold, as quoted above? Meaning, no one is receiving any revelation; direct or indirect. It's all instead self-deception/other.

Yeah, I read it. You want to know why people make a special exception for people hearing God in the bible, but don't think anyone can hear God (or His Son) today and instead assume those people are all mistaken/delusional/lying/etc.

I am not one of those people. People from 'bible times' (and earlier) could hear God (and/or His Son), then AND now.

See now, this has nothing to do with the OP.

You could ask those same questions - how do you know it is God speaking - to anyone in the OT (if they were alive and present).

So there is no special exception; you are just questioning how a person comes to know if something is or is not from God (or His Son).

Yes.

Okay then. So we agree there is no special exception; no different reasoning from 'bible times' to 'today times'.

In the OT, if something did not happen that a prophet said would happen, a person would know it was not from God.

Why give the Bible special anything? If the Bible says it, then you believe it? Why?

Your answer is in the response you quoted below...

You may not know that any external agency exists. I do. Not because the bible says so (faith existed before the bible existed). But because I (and others) have experience with Christ (and so also His Father), because I (and others) know Him (and so know also His Father).

What experience?

The experience of hearing Him, for one; of speaking with Him (not just to Him but also hearing from Him).


Peace again to you.

[POI]

Below are your assertions from post 8. I'm keeping them as stickies, on the top, for reference:

A) "God still communicates today through His Son. (visions, dreams, words)"

B) "If the message holds up against love (and does not contradict Christ), then it could be, yes. If the message fails against love and contradicts Christ, then no."

C) "I don't know if I know how to explain to you what love is. Love forgives, love gives to the one in need, love serves others, love is kind, etc."

D) "But in the OT, there were false prophets... and true prophets. There was the Word of God; there were people who claimed to hear from God but did not... and there were people who DID hear and receive the Word of God."

tam That does not follow, POI. Perhaps you misread 'it could discern' for 'i' could discern?

POI I forgot to add the second quote from you.

Love is love.

What is the point of your question? Please re-read point B) and note the full quote.

Because "Jesus/God" could ask you to do things in which you mistakenly think are not from love but are. Please recall the OT. Does Jesus agree with his father? Your assessment does not demonstrate to be reliable.

Because I know His voice; because I do not know the things that the Spirit (Christ) is teaching; because of the wisdom from the Spirit (His wisdom, not my own).

Then please ask him to speak to me, so I can experience what you experience. Have him tell us both the same exact thing. I will then tell you what he said, and you can then confirm he told you the exact same thing. (I will await your excuse as to why this is not going to happen). Otherwise, I do not believe you. No more than I believe the many who claim Jesus/God/other speak to them.

Yeah, I read it. You want to know why people make a special exception for people hearing God in the bible, but don't think anyone can hear God (or His Son) today and instead assume those people are all mistaken/delusional/lying/etc.

I am not one of those people. People from 'bible times' (and earlier) could hear God (and/or His Son), then AND now.

Then you should not have responded. But since you did... I would still love to explore why you believe you hear Jesus.

Okay then. So we agree there is no special exception; no different reasoning from 'bible times' to 'today times'.

People do give special exception, because the Bible says it. Apparently, this is not you. But like I said, I would still love to explore.

[Purple Knight]

God could give you the same revelation (though you should still hold it up against the Light/Christ), thereby confirming the revelation Bob Blobertson received. But the one you should be trusting and listening to is Christ (Mark 9:7; Matt 17:5). Bob Blobertson would be a witness to Christ. Meaning directing people to come to and listen to Christ. If you're looking at Bob Bloberston and following him, trusting him in all things, then when he makes a mistake, won't you follow his mistakes as well?

The thing is, you entirely get it. You've said you do and you do. You are absolutely 100% on board with the idea that Bob Blobertson is not above scrutiny and we need something to test his words against.

Because people lie. People also misrepresent or withhold, as you say, like Peter did, which misled people even though he never had to lie to them.

Now, a lot of atheists, and I would say this honestly from the people I've met: Most atheists are dishonest. They don't look. They don't see. They are just trying to sound smart. They're just trying to look cool. They've jumped a bandwagon. And they're not holding anything up to the light.

This is not true of all atheists however. Some of us are holding the Bible up to the light, and finding it genuinely wanting.

I'm an example of that. I actually am very smart, but I also bother people, so I have absolutely no stake in this game many atheists are playing. Because, if someone is not the type of person who considers, they'll dismiss me as dumb, and if they do consider, they'll see I'm not. I can't sound any smarter than I am. I'm reasoned but not polite. This is simply how I am, how God made me if that's your bag. I have no politeness switch I can turn on, believe me I've tried, and being reasoned, unfortunately, I cannot turn off. I can't increase the people who think I'm smart by hopping bandwagons. So I have no horse in this race and I'm saying, yeah... some things in the Bible are concerning. Some things, I've held up to the light and found wanting. Top two are sin transference (negating individual responsibility) and the requirement of absolutely forgiving everybody, which I don't think is possible or fair. (However, the whole "god doesn't exist, Christians are dumb because they believe in magic" really misses all the truest issues. That's the one that if I see someone spouting it, I know they're bandwagoners.)

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #6]

Why not just assume that ALL claimed "contact" is fraudulent/self-deception/lies/delusion?

One is certainly free to do that, and I have no problem with folks who do such a thing. However, I do not tend to dismiss claims simply based upon how unbelievable the claim may be. As an example, I do not simply dismiss the claims of other religions. The claims may, or may not be true, but I have not found a reason to investigate such claims. In fact, I was not at all interested in investigating the claims of Christianity, but I had no choice. So again, you are certainly free to dismiss all such claims, and I will not in any way have a problem with it. It is simply not a very good argument against such claims.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #6]

Why not just assume that ALL claimed "contact" is fraudulent/self-deception/lies/delusion?

1) One is certainly free to do that, and I have no problem with folks who do such a thing. However, I do not tend to dismiss claims simply based upon how unbelievable the claim may be. 2) As an example, I do not simply dismiss the claims of other religions. The claims may, or may not be true, but I have not found a reason to investigate such claims. In fact, I was not at all interested in investigating the claims of Christianity, but I had no choice. 3) So again, you are certainly free to dismiss all such claims, and I will not in any way have a problem with it. It is simply not a very good argument against such claims.

1) Based upon the response you have given thus far, you would dismiss any new claims from your believed upon God though, right? As you stated, the Bible mentions 'past tense'.
2) What exactly made you have no choice? And what convinced you that they were/are real in Christianity?
3) I would agree that such specific types of claims from the past may be unfalsifiable. But we can test any current ones, like I asked of tam in post 15, for which I'm pretty sure she will not engage; even though she also states Jesus speaks to her and others in post 12.

[William]

I don't subscribe to the notion that people receive divine revelation to the extent that the discussion suggests anyway. God doesn't talk to people like he did Moses. He doesn't tell them to go forth and convert the heathens running amok on internet forums. If someone tells me "God told me" or they received something through "divine revelation" I'm pretty sure they are lying or delusional. Or perhaps even under demonic influence.

[Replying to POI in post #1]

For debate: Why give the Bible special circumstances, special privileges, special pleading, or special rules? Why not just apply the exact same reasoning in bold, as quoted above? Meaning, no one is receiving any revelation; direct or indirect. It's all instead self-deception/other.

The answer to that question appears (to me) to be that we cannot substitute one unsupported concept for another unsupported concept.
__________________________________

The Voice of Christ: In The Rabbit Hole…Put That On The List
“Why give the Bible special circumstances, special privileges, special pleading, or special rules?”

Medium (Entity): Done.

The Voice of Christ: Christian mythology re God " It helps makes the stinky hole I was pushed through in order to get here, a purposeful experience..."
(Every Key Picks Its Own Lock)
It should come as no surprise that you can see the signal.

Medium (Entity): The fog lifts, is “why” I can do so…

The Voice of Christ: Transferring your awareness I Am Hearing You

Medium (Entity): Indeed…that is the point. The “hearing” is mutual.

The Voice of Christ: “Why not just apply the exact same reasoning in bold, as quoted above? Meaning, no one is receiving any revelation; direct or indirect. It's all instead self-deception/other.”
Temporary
Okay - facts are great.
A type of ad hominem argument in which one discredits a position by asserting that the proponent has acted contradictory to their stated position.
A question was asked… “Can you please upload a video of the Old Soul (aka Voice of Christ) so I can observe?"

Medium (Entity): What was the answer?

The Voice of Christ: The Answer was that “We do not need any such evidence. We only need to observe the goings on of the planet in relation to our experience of it, and gather the data of experience as it presents.
I don't even have an image in my mind as to what Old Soul looks like, in which to show you.
My experience of Old Soul has everything to do with my particular subjective experience and record of that, which I use as a means of communing with the invisible minds that both me, and Old Soul - use together, for that purpose.

That is the only evidence I personally require."

Medium (Entity): Interesting…

The Voice of Christ: Thoughts

Medium (Entity): Yes – minds corelating into "Mind".

The Voice of Christ: Where do you find comfort?

Medium (Entity): In the communion of these minds.

The Voice of Christ: Betterment re “Functional Cluster”.
Alignment
Tales From Topographic Oceans

Medium (Entity): “You seekers of the truth accepting that reason will relive and breath and hope and chase and love
For you and you and you.”

The Voice of Christ: "You" are.
(10.000 individual minds focused upon the same goal = Space Telescope)
Science & Spirituality
The One We Cannot See is The One We Still Can Hear.

Medium (Entity): It would seem that IF enough “hear” THEN “changes can happen.”
Some appear to turn from their "unsuccessful attempt to find something".

The Voice of Christ: A conversation was had...
“The concepts themselves require change, and perhaps this is what is meant by evil being deleted. The personalities change as the concepts change/the concepts change as the personalities change.

Having the belief that soul and personality are the same, makes the change - impossible, as far as I can tell, because the individual has no helper to activate said change, being in a position where trust in ones personality ["soul" in your regard] can be subject to those things you mentioned - hallucination, lies, et al.

Or as Bob Dylan wrote in a song;

Preacher was talking there's a sermon he gave
He said every man's conscience is vile and depraved
You cannot depend on it to be your guide
When it's you who must keep it satisfied

Soul - as an aspect of unchangeable YHVH - independent helper of the growing/changing personality, allows one to trust in something greater than oneself.”

Medium (Entity): Something worth pondering on…"Soul" as the activated "Voice of Christ" one (a personality) "hears" and responds to/with.

[POI]

The answer to that question appears (to me) to be that we cannot substitute one unsupported concept for another unsupported concept.

I understand what you are saying, which is why we can also test them. Tam claims Jesus speaks to her and others today in post 15. I asked her for follow up, and she will now not respond. If someone claims an external agency speaks to them and others, and we have means to test, and they refuse, what does this say about their claim? Of course, it could still be true. Just like other religions, "mediums", "psychics", etc., could also be true in receiving external communication. But I find, when tested, with any amount of scrutiny, they seem to crumble. But yea, let's assume they are still possibly true.