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.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #30]

Have 100 Christians ask this question, who state Jesus communicates with them. The ones who receive an answer, should logically all get the same answer, right?

The assumptions have to be dealt with first.

I already mention that it hasn't been established such interaction is with an external entity and nor has it been established that such an entity would itself agree with participating in your test.

The way I see it the Christ or voice of Christ as Tam tells it is a relationship between the Christ and the individual and such a relationship can be years in the making and specific to the individual and The Father re Christ and it is unknown to what extent any individual and Christ interact about such mundane subjects as what Jesus' favourite food may have been, so I think your idea of how to test such a thing has some problems and not to forget you and I had something of an agreement as to what types of tests we could come up with and place on a list for further consideration.

I am engaging with your suggestion and asking for clarification and also asking relevant questions which would come up if such a test should be considered practical as a means of establishing anything concrete.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #30]

Have 100 Christians ask this question, who state Jesus communicates with them. The ones who receive an answer, should logically all get the same answer, right?

1) The assumptions have to be dealt with first.

2) I already mention that it hasn't been established such interaction is with an external entity and nor has it been established that such an entity would itself agree with participating in your test.

3) The way I see it the Christ or voice of Christ as Tam tells it is a relationship between the Christ and the individual and such a relationship can be years in the making and specific to the individual and The Father re Christ and it is unknown to what extent any individual and Christ interact about such mundane subjects as what Jesus' favourite food may have been, so I think your idea of how to test such a thing has some problems and not to forget you and I had something of an agreement as to what types of tests we could come up with and place on a list for further consideration.

4) I am engaging with your suggestion and asking for clarification and also asking relevant questions which would come up if such a test should be considered practical as a means of establishing anything concrete.

The push-back speaks volumes. Maybe Data is right here. You are all either delusional or lying? The unanswered question remains for him, why aren't the Bible figures ALSO delusional or lying?

1) My assumption is self-deception. Why? Because Jesus ain't giving you anything you could not also give yourself. Jesus ain't giving the same answers to multiple people at the same time, for all to verify. Sure, I could be wrong, but so could any other assumption. Which assumption carries the least amount of additional necessary "spin"? I'd say mine does. Why? Because we have yet to verify any external agency, but know countless people do talk to themselves. List your favorite alternative assumption and explain why it needs less 'spin' than mine.

2) The "spin" here is to suggest that Jesus would not participate in such activities. The problem here is that such participation would lead to converts. Seems odd Jesus would not want to lead others to him.

3) How do you know what Jesus would and would not respond to? I see nothing but push-back here, from such a simple and logical test.

4) I think if it were to be found that 100 Christians wrote down the same answer, after asking Jesus the same question, this would be hard to refute. So instead, let's await the countless excuses as to why this will never happen.

[William]

Did Data show his opinion was true?

I have provided evidence of an interaction between Christ and I and the evidence has been critiqed by no one so I see little reason to beleve either your opinion or Data's re supposed claims/ conclusions either of you have provided.

[POI]

Did Data show his opinion was true?

No. I'm now stating that maybe his opinion is correct, for which I gave reason(s) why.

I have provided evidence of an interaction between Christ and I

You have done no such thing. You have provided a response, (in post 19), interjecting your own thoughts as the thoughts of some external agency - "Jesus". Nothing you provided in this exchange demonstrates the necessity for anything outside yourself. Maybe ask Jesus how to cure cerebral palsy or something, or to give you 100% knowledge of a language you have never been exposed to or have studied. You know, something for which you could not generate on your own.

[William]

Nothing you provided in this exchange demonstrates the necessity for anything outside yourself.

What makes you believe that interacting with Christ is an external thing?
Where in what I have argued and shared have I claimed such?

[POI]

Nothing you provided in this exchange demonstrates the necessity for anything outside yourself.

What makes you believe that interacting with Christ is an external thing?
Where in what I have argued and shared have I claimed such?

"Christ" is not you, and you are not "Christ". Unless you admit you are talking to yourself alone, you are claiming communication with someone other than yourself. Hence, "Christ" would be a claimed external agency, or whatever else you instead wish to call him.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Sorry for the delayed response (school, work, and sometimes I need a little down time, myself).

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.

And?
You still don't seem to be taking point B) into consideration.

Please recall the OT. Does Jesus agree with his father? Your assessment does not demonstrate to be reliable.

The Father is as Christ reveals Him to be.


If something even in the OT contradicts something that Christ said, then the Father is as Christ shows Him and (1) there is a problem with the OT passage; perhaps it is incorrect due to the erring pen of the scribes or a translation error... and/or (2) we are misunderstanding the passage itself (hence, look to Christ FIRST; also, seek first the righteousness of the Father when attempting to understand something.)

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.

It is not about asking Him to speak to you. He speaks to everyone. That does not mean everyone listens, however, or even recognize His voice.

As He says, HIS sheep listen to HIS voice.

If you want to hear, truly (to serve Him and His Father), rather than just wanting to say 'he doesn't speak to me, therefore he is not real' in a debate... then ASK for ears to hear. Ask and KEEP asking. That - along with serving Him and His Father as best as I could - is what I did. I also did not set any kind of time limit on hearing His voice; and I would just continue to obey and serve as best as I could, even if it took the rest of my life before I heard His voice. Because I love Him (He loved me first).

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.

I have no expectations about what you believe or not.

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.

Perhaps, but I wanted to respond to Purple Knight and his well-said post.

But since you did... I would still love to explore why you believe you hear Jesus.

I do not merely 'believe' that I hear my Lord (Christ). I do hear Him. I even responded to your question about how I know:

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).


Peace again to you.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #36]

"Christ" is not you, and you are not "Christ". Unless you admit you are talking to yourself alone, you are claiming communication with someone other than yourself. Hence, "Christ" would be a claimed external agency, or whatever else you instead wish to call him.

Not sure where you are getting your data re Christ from, but presently it just comes across as unsupported opinion POI.

But anyway, whoever is whatever aside, the evidence is in the message and context of the interaction I have shared.

Your suggestion re the testing you proposed POI appears to have gone up in flames now that you have argued for this new rule because you can simply claim the same thing-along the lines that anyone who is not accompanied by an "external" Christ, is just "talking to themselves".

I remind the reader at this point that I did say my relationship with Christ aligns the internal with the external - but I did not elaborate and nor did I mean it that the "external" meant "Christ."

[POI]

You still don't seem to be taking point B) into consideration.

Oh, but I am. Your own definition of love may certainly not align with Christ/Jesus/God. And/or what you perceive may be a mistake. You could hear a voice, for which you think is not Christ, but really is, and vise/versa.

The Father is as Christ reveals Him to be.

If something even in the OT contradicts something that Christ said, then the Father is as Christ shows Him and (1) there is a problem with the OT passage; perhaps it is incorrect due to the erring pen of the scribes or a translation error... and/or (2) we are misunderstanding the passage itself (hence, look to Christ FIRST; also, seek first the righteousness of the Father when attempting to understand something.)

The question remains, does Christ/Jesus agree with his dad? Your response above looks to be in protecting the Bible at all costs. Rather than to explain further, I'll just provide a 6-minute video. Though seemingly patronizing, it explains what you are doing perfectly:

It is not about asking Him to speak to you.

Yes it is. You just refuse to do it because you know nothing will happen.

He speaks to everyone.

If that were true, I would not be an atheist.

That does not mean everyone listens, however, or even recognize His voice.

So Jesus is unable to present himself in a way in which all can understand? Hmmm?

As He says, HIS sheep listen to HIS voice.

If you want to hear, truly (to serve Him and His Father), rather than just wanting to say 'he doesn't speak to me, therefore he is not real' in a debate... then ASK for ears to hear. Ask and KEEP asking. That - along with serving Him and His Father as best as I could - is what I did. I also did not set any kind of time limit on hearing His voice; and I would just continue to obey and serve as best as I could, even if it took the rest of my life before I heard His voice. Because I love Him (He loved me first).

Then I guess we can just throw out Saul of tarsus, who writes nearly half the NT. Saul did not ask for ears.

I have no expectations about what you believe or not.

Yes you do. You already know it wouldn't work. Hence, the hand-waving....

Perhaps, but I wanted to respond to Purple Knight and his well-said post.

Kool. Data thinks people like you and William are either delusional or lying. I do not think either of you are lying. but instead, likely mistaken. And nothing you have said, thus far, demonstrates otherwise.

I do not merely 'believe' that I hear my Lord (Christ). I do hear Him. I even responded to your question about how I know:

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).

Isn't it strange how Christ never tells you anything you could not have told yourself?

[POI]

the evidence is in the message and context of the interaction I have shared.

The only 'evidence' shared is a dialogue between you and yourself. We know you exist, but we do not know if Christ/Jesus exists. Ask him to tell you something in which you could not already know.

Your suggestion re the testing you proposed POI appears to have gone up in flames now that you have argued for this new rule because you can simply claim the same thing-along the lines that anyone who is not accompanied by an "external" Christ, is just "talking to themselves".

Negative. We already agreed that certain conditions would need to take place.

My test still stands. If we could rule out coercion, deception, other, and have 100 people ask Jesus what his favorite food is, I do not see why he would not answer. We could see if all receive the same answer. And when we already know we would not, let the excuses fly. That is when it goes up in flames, for the asserting theist

I remind the reader at this point that I did say my relationship with Christ aligns the internal with the external - but I did not elaborate and nor did I mean it that the "external" meant "Christ."

You do not need to elaborate. Christ is not going to tell you anything for which you could not already concoct on your own. Maybe ask Christ for new wisdom. Maybe this is where he will provide you with the perfect new knowledge of an unknown language, or the spontaneous new knowledge of how to cure a seemingly incurable condition, or other. But I doubt it.