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.

[tam]

Peace to you,

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.

Okay... we do have some of what Christ said written down. This is not perfect because there can be errors in the text, but it is something a person can look at. One can also test a message against what one has heard (in the spirit) from Christ on previous occasions, and one can ask Christ about something that someone else has claimed.

I am not sure what your concern is with love. I think I gave you an example, but you're just giving a generic 'what-if' without even giving an example. Do you have an example?

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.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I said if the OT states something that is in contract with what Christ reveals about the Father, then that OT passage is either IN ERROR (how is that protecting the bible at all costs?), or we have misunderstood something about that OT scenario.

As to your question, of course Christ agrees with His Father. But how do you know what the Father thinks, wants, desires, says, does: You look at Christ and listen to Him. HE is the Truth, including the truth of His Father. If we know Christ, we know His Father as well... not because they are the same person, but because Christ perfectly reflects His Father. He is TRULY His Father's Son.

Rather than to explain further, I'll just provide a 6-minute video. Though seemingly patronizing, it explains what you are doing perfectly:

You remember how you wouldn't even click on a link to a different post on this very forum, yet you expect me to watch videos that you post? Even so, I watched part of the video, and no doubt there are at least some things that are being taken out of context, but that is not what I am saying.


I am testing things against Christ. Period.

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.

No it is not. I do not have to ask that question because He already speaks to everyone. Not everyone listens. Not everyone recognizes His voice. (and this is no different now than it was in the "OT".)

He speaks to everyone.

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

Or you have not listened. Or you have not recognized His voice.

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?

Or not everyone listens... the same as not everyone listened when He was standing there in the flesh and speaking to people with a physical voice. In fact, only a few listened and remained with Him.

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 Sal of tarsus, who writes nearly half the NT. Sal did not ask for ears.

Saul/Paul is the one and only example of an intervention like that (for a specific reason). It was not an easy thing that he experienced, he was sick (and made blind for a short period of time)... and he already believed in God.

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.

People think all sorts of things. For you, as an atheist, I understand that you cannot accept that someone you do not believe exists, is speaking. This is understandable coming from an atheist.

For anyone who professes to be a believer, or a Christian, or even just someone who claims to believe the bible: even the bible shows Christ speaking to His disciples after His death and resurrection and ascension. That is the example we have in what is written. Even the bible records Christ as saying that HIS sheep listen to HIS VOICE. Even the bible records Him saying that He has more sheep to call, that they too WOULD (future tense) LISTEN TO HIS VOICE. See also Hebrews 3:7 (Today if you hear his voice... and this was being repeated to the people in the then present time.)

Then there is some reasoning and faith: Christ is the LIVING WORD of God. He is a LIVING being. LIVING beings SPEAK. How much more so a LIVING WORD?!!

Now some people just don't realize that Christ is supposed to be able to speak, but once some of these passages are pointed out, they may see from His own words (and example) that He is supposed to speak; that He did in fact say that HIS sheep would listen to HIS VOICE. Then they might even start asking for ears to hear, themselves (and once receiving these ears, they may even come to realize that Christ had indeed been speaking to them and they had simply not recognized His voice; perhaps because they did not realize He could speak, perhaps they mistook His voice for their own inner voice, or there could be some other reason unique to them.)

The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5 But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” John 10:2-5

“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. John 10:14-16

The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life. Rev 22:17

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?

I bolded the part that you seem to have overlooked. My Lord has indeed told me things that I could not have told myself. You may not be able to accept that. But that doesn't change what I KNOW to be true.

Peace still to you, and to you all.

May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear, so as to hear the Spirit and the bride say to YOU, "Come!" May anyone who wishes and anyone who thirsts, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of LIFE!"

your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[William]

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.

My IP modem broke so I am reduced to using a not so smart phone to reply, so my replies are short and to the point, as best I am able.

When my new IP delivers a modem I will go over the message I shared in ( those two posts) and explain why it is not just a matter of "talking to myself."

Meantime, I agree with the asessment re the integration of thought into ones conscious awareness and how this does indeed constitute the action of "talking to oneself" and that is what the act of "thinking" is.

Re the evidence (that you are disagreeing is evidence) I certainly admit that it appears to be a message generated internally (re "thinking") and as such, a transcript of me having a conversation with myself and sharing those thoughts as if I were "talking with somebody else" (depending upon what "name" Ì choose to give to this imaginary friend.)

However, the message was not generated in that manner. Which is to say, the message didn't just "pop into my head" and I then tranposed it into written word.

[POI]

Okay... we do have some of what Christ said written down. This is not perfect because there can be errors in the text, but it is something a person can look at.

What you are essentially doing is reading the Bible. When you like or agree with what you read, "it's correctly inspired". When you see something amiss, it's not correctly inspired. You are not Christ. Christ could most certainly tell you something for which you think is not from 'love', and then dismiss. But maybe it is, and YOU are the one mistaken. Maybe Christ/God's version of 'love' does not directly jive with your version. What you look to be doing, is creating an unfalsifiable scenario to protect the Bible.

I am not sure what your concern is with love. I think I gave you an example, but you're just giving a generic 'what-if' without even giving an example. Do you have an example?

There is many from the video alone. They are, of course, either out of context, errors from the scribes, or another excuse.

As to your question, of course Christ agrees with His Father.

Great, then Jesus too is sometimes okay with and also lovingly endorses genocide, infanticide, and certain types of rape.

You remember how you wouldn't even click on a link to a different post on this very forum, yet you expect me to watch videos that you post? Even so, I watched part of the video, and no doubt there are at least some things that are being taken out of context, but that is not what I am saying.

I am testing things against Christ. Period.

You are certainly welcome to watch the whole thing, or not. But without watching the whole thing, it does not carry the point. I sometimes do not want to type what a video can instead explain just as well, or better. Again, if Christ agrees with his dad, then genocide, infanticide, and certain types of rape are okay. Christ/God's 'love' is not your version of 'love', as you would likely NEVER endorse such acts. For you, these acts would never constitute as being 'the light'. Which is why, of course, there must be an error/other

Saul/Paul is the one and only example of an intervention like that (for a specific reason). It was not an easy thing that he experienced, he was sick (and made blind for a short period of time)... and he already believed in God.

No. There is also 'doubting Thomas'. However, you have just debunked your own response, when you say things like, "we need to ask for ears, or not everyone listens.". We don't need to ask for ears or listen! I guess Christ instead decides who he will speak to.

People think all sorts of things. For you, as an atheist, I understand that you cannot accept that someone you do not believe exists, is speaking. This is understandable coming from an atheist.

It's more than just an atheist not thinking you speak to Christ. Realworldjack, a Christian in post 4, suggests 'past tense.' For differing reason(s), he too believes you may very well be mistaken.

My Lord has indeed told me things that I could not have told myself. You may not be able to accept that. But that doesn't change what I KNOW to be true.

Stating "I know it's true" means nothing. You need to demonstrate it. And nothing here demonstrates that it is not just you speaking to 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.

My IP modem broke so I am reduced to using a not so smart phone to reply, so my replies are short and to the point, as best I am able.

When my new IP delivers a modem I will go over the message I shared in ( those two posts) and explain why it is not just a matter of "talking to myself."

Meantime, I agree with the asessment re the integration of thought into ones conscious awareness and how this does indeed constitute the action of "talking to oneself" and that is what the act of "thinking" is.

Re the evidence (that you are disagreeing is evidence) I certainly admit that it appears to be a message generated internally (re "thinking") and as such, a transcript of me having a conversation with myself and sharing those thoughts as if I were "talking with somebody else" (depending upon what "name" Ì choose to give to this imaginary friend.)

However, the message was not generated in that manner. Which is to say, the message didn't just "pop into my head" and I then tranposed it into written word.

Well then, I will await your follow-up before I respond. Thanks.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Okay... we do have some of what Christ said written down. This is not perfect because there can be errors in the text, but it is something a person can look at.

What you are essentially doing is reading the Bible. When you like or agree with what you read, "it's correctly inspired". When you see something amiss, it's not correctly inspired.

This just sounds like you're parroting something some atheists like to say. It has nothing to do with anything I said: Something is true if it agrees with Christ. Nothing is true simply because I like or agree with it.

You are not Christ. Christ could most certainly tell you something for which you think is not from 'love', and then dismiss.

Such as?

(in theory this is possible - though I am not sure what your issue is with it? Something like that would be my mistake; it would not be an indication that Christ does not speak. It indicates only that I might miss something from Christ.)

I am not sure what your concern is with love. I think I gave you an example, but you're just giving a generic 'what-if' without even giving an example. Do you have an example?

There is many from the video alone. They are, of course, either out of context, errors from the scribes, or another excuse.

There is nothing in the video that provides an example of something from Christ that I might not realize is also from love (or what consequences you think that might have.)

As to your question, of course Christ agrees with His Father.

Great, then Jesus too is sometimes okay with and also lovingly endorses genocide, infanticide, and certain types of rape.

Please don't pretend that you do not see or hear only what you wish to see and hear. Because you completely ignored all I said after this sentence, just so you could assert the point YOU want to be true.

Connected to those words you took out of context are the following:

But how do you know what the Father thinks, wants, desires, says, does: You look at Christ and listen to Him. HE is the Truth, including the truth of His Father. If we know Christ, we know His Father as well... not because they are the same person, but because Christ perfectly reflects His Father. He is TRULY His Father's Son.

Saul/Paul is the one and only example of an intervention like that (for a specific reason). It was not an easy thing that he experienced, he was sick (and made blind for a short period of time)... and he already believed in God.

No. There is also 'doubting Thomas'.

Thomas did not doubt that Jaheshua is the Christ. Thomas had faith. Thomas just did not believe the others who told him Christ had been resurrected.

However, you have just debunked your own response, when you say things like, "we need to ask for ears, or not everyone listens.". We don't need to ask for ears or listen! I guess Christ instead decides who he will speak to.

Christ was standing there in the flesh when he spoke to Thomas. He had not yet ascended.

People think all sorts of things. For you, as an atheist, I understand that you cannot accept that someone you do not believe exists, is speaking. This is understandable coming from an atheist.

It's more than just an atheist not thinking you speak to Christ. Realworldjack, a Christian in post 4, suggests 'past tense.' For differing reason(s), he too believes you may very well be mistaken.

I responded to that reasoning in my post to you (though I addressed that part to people who think like realworldjack).


Peace again.

[POI]

tam This just sounds like you're parroting something some atheists like to say. It has nothing to do with anything I said: Something is true if it agrees with Christ. Nothing is true simply because I like or agree with it.

POI Christ agrees with his dad. His dad endorses genocide, infanticide, and circumstances for rape. And then I read, as you offer excuses (errors and context). It's not parroting, it's me saying that your moral compass is 'better' than the Christ/God for which you wish to worship.

tam Such as?

POI Take your pick from the video, for the ones in which the Christian yells, 'context'.

tam (in theory this is possible - though I am not sure what your issue is with it? Something like that would be my mistake; it would not be an indication that Christ does not speak. It indicates only that I might miss something from Christ.)

POI Do you care about if what you believe is actually true? I currently believe that no one is actually communicating with a postmortem Jesus, or any other said supernatural agency. And everything you say here could very well be from yourself alone. In my line of work, I speak to countless people who believe they communicate with some external supernatural agency, and many of them are not even the one you believe you are speaking to. If your belief is correct, I would like some proof. But sadly, when I investigate, it always falls flat. If there exists some agency out there, speaking to humans, I would like to know about it. But so far, I get little/nothing coherent from such interlocutors. Sorry!

tam Please don't pretend that you do not see or hear only what you wish to see and hear. Because you completely ignored all I said after this sentence, just so you could assert the point YOU want to be true.

Connected to those words you took out of context are the following:

But how do you know what the Father thinks, wants, desires, says, does: You look at Christ and listen to Him. HE is the Truth, including the truth of His Father. If we know Christ, we know His Father as well... not because they are the same person, but because Christ perfectly reflects His Father. He is TRULY His Father's Son.

POI Nothing in the above changes the reality that you look to a book which endorses genocide, infanticide, and certain types of rape. So of course, the excuses are going to fly. Such endorsements would NOT EVER be defined as YOUR brand of "love", under any circumstances.

tam Thomas did not doubt that Jaheshua is the Christ. Thomas had faith. Thomas just did not believe the others who told him Christ had been resurrected.

POI Right. And Jesus decided to remove Thomas's doubt. It was not Thomas's choice, it was Jesus's.

tam Christ was standing there in the flesh when he spoke to Thomas. He had not yet ascended.

POI You completely skipped Saul/Paul. Since Saul/Paul was contacted, without first requesting ears or listening, requesting ears or listening is not required. So please do not use this excuse.

tam I responded to that reasoning in my post to you (though I addressed that part to people who think like realworldjack).

POI So Realworldjack is wrong? How do you know your cited verses are not the error?

[tam]

Peace to you,

tam This just sounds like you're parroting something some atheists like to say. It has nothing to do with anything I said: Something is true if it agrees with Christ. Nothing is true simply because I like or agree with it.

POI Christ agrees with his dad. His dad endorses genocide, infanticide, and circumstances for rape.

How do you know what His Father endorses?

And then I read, as you offer excuses (errors and context). It's not parroting, it's me saying that your moral compass is 'better' than the Christ/God for which you wish to worship.

How do you know the moral compass of Christ or His Father?

tam Such as?

POI Take your pick from the video, for the ones in which the Christian yells, 'context'.

I have said nothing about context. If you cannot give an example of what you mean, so be it.

tam Please don't pretend that you do not see or hear only what you wish to see and hear. Because you completely ignored all I said after this sentence, just so you could assert the point YOU want to be true.

Connected to those words you took out of context are the following:

But how do you know what the Father thinks, wants, desires, says, does: You look at Christ and listen to Him. HE is the Truth, including the truth of His Father. If we know Christ, we know His Father as well... not because they are the same person, but because Christ perfectly reflects His Father. He is TRULY His Father's Son.

POI Nothing in the above changes the reality that you look to a book which endorses genocide, infanticide, and certain types of rape.

Nope.

I look to Christ.

As I said.

(And just to point a fact to your general complaint: no matter how much some people claim 'context' is an excuse, obviously context does matter a great deal.)

tam Thomas did not doubt that Jaheshua is the Christ. Thomas had faith. Thomas just did not believe the others who told him Christ had been resurrected.

POI Right. And Jesus decided to remove Thomas's doubt. It was not Thomas's choice, it was Jesus's.

I'm not sure what your point is regarding 'choice' here?

tam Christ was standing there in the flesh when he spoke to Thomas. He had not yet ascended.

POI You completely skipped Saul/Paul. Since Saul/Paul was contacted, without first requesting ears or listening, requesting ears or listening is not required. So please do not use this excuse.

I never said it was required. I simply said if YOU do NOT hear, but YOU WANT to hear, then ASK (and keep asking).

tam I responded to that reasoning in my post to you (though I addressed that part to people who think like realworldjack).

POI So Realworldjack is wrong? How do you know your cited verses are not the error?

Because my Lord speaks and I hear His voice.
Because what my Lord said (as these verses record) and the examples given in what is written, have been proven true to me.

Btw...there is no error in the verse that realworldjack cited, as far as I know; just an error in how that verse is being read. I believe realworldjack did state that he was explaining what he thinks about that verse. New information might cause him to rethink things, learn more.


Peace again to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[POI]

How do you know what His Father endorses?

Because it is in the book.

How do you know the moral compass of Christ or His Father?

Well, I've read his commands/suggestions/instructions, and I'm willing to bet yours are better, IMO. Except, in order to protect the book, you have to come up with excuses. You know, with "the errors" and all that nonsense....

I have said nothing about context. If you cannot give an example of what you mean, so be it.

I'm not necessarily saying you are, even though you kind of did a few posts back and also below. But the 'context' video encompasses all the excuses theists make to protect their beloved book.

Nope.

Yep. Are you trying to suggest the book does not instruct (group A) to inflict genocide, infanticide, and certain types of rape upon (group B)?

(And just to point a fact to your general complaint: no matter how much some people claim 'context' is an excuse, obviously context does matter a great deal.)

And I'm willing to bet, that in no context, would you ever endorse genocide, infanticide, and certain types of rape.

I'm not sure what your point is regarding 'choice' here?

It's Jesus's will, not ours, for Jesus to present. I guess you were one of the lucky ones.

I never said it was required. I simply said if YOU do NOT hear, but YOU WANT to hear, then ASK (and keep asking).

Opening your ears or merely correctly listening is neither necessary or required. So please stop using this apologetic.

Because my Lord speaks and I hear His voice.
Because what my Lord said (as these verses record) and the examples given in what is written, have been proven true to me.

Btw...there is no error in the verse that realworldjack cited, as far as I know; just an error in how that verse is being read. I believe realworldjack did state that he was explaining what he thinks about that verse. New information might cause him to rethink things, learn more.

Interesting. You seem to know which verses are in error and what is truly Christ's voice. Too bad he's telling the earnest one next to you, differing stuff.

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

Below is worth repeating:

Do you care about if what you believe is actually true? I currently believe that no one is actually communicating with a postmortem Jesus, or any other said supernatural agency. And everything you say here could very well be from yourself alone. In my line of work, I speak to countless people who believe they communicate with some external supernatural agency, and many of them are not even the one you believe you are speaking to. If your belief is correct, I would like some proof. But sadly, when I investigate, it always falls flat. If there exists some agency out there, speaking to humans, I would like to know about it. But so far, I get little/nothing coherent from such interlocutors. Sorry!

[POI]

Status update:

-- Data and Realworldjack believe God/other used to communicate with humans, but not-so-much now.

-- Tam and William believe God/other still does communicate with them, and others.

-- POI believes neither group. POI instead believes all are in self-deception, including the Bible characters.

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

My initial question was to Data and Realworldjack (i.e.) Why not also believe that the Bible characters were in self-deception or lying? Why give Bible characters a special pass? This question has yet to be addressed from either, or any other theist who has similar beliefs.

[POI]

My initial question was to Data and Realworldjack. (i.e.) Why not also believe that the Bible characters were in self-deception or lying? Why give Bible characters a special pass? This question has yet to be addressed from either, or any other theist who has similar beliefs.