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,

How do you know what His Father endorses?

Because it is in the book.

"The book" is not the Image of God.
"The book" is not the Truth (nor the truth of God).


Christ (Jaheshua, the Son of God) is the Image of God.
Christ is the Truth of God.
Christ is the Word of God.

Christ is the One who shows us the Father. If we know Christ, THEN we know the Father also.

You cannot know the God and Father of Christ by looking at something or someone other than the Son.


If they had everything right before Christ, POI, then why would He have had to come to explain and teach and correct? Why would the TRUTH (I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life) have been needed if the people had the truth already? If God could have been known by "the book", why did Christ say, "No one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him?"

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....

See above.

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.

Except I am not trying to protect a book. The one who is beloved to me is Christ. Not a book.

You're debating against a "strawman" that you or others have invented.

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.

Because you're an expert on the topic, are you?

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.

Is He, though? Because I don't recall realworldjack saying that Christ told him that He does not speak anymore.

Below is worth repeating:

The only question you asked is:

Do you care about if what you believe is actually true?

I do.
That is the reason I look and listen to Christ to know what is true.


Peace to you.

[POI]

If they had everything right before Christ, POI, then why would He have had to come to explain and teach and correct? Why would the TRUTH (I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life) have been needed if the people had the truth already? If God could have been known by "the book", why did Christ say, "No one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him?"

This does not address my prior assessment. If Jesus agrees with his dad, then Jesus too sometimes endorses genocide, infanticide, and certain types of rape.

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

See above.

See above.

You're debating against a "strawman" that you or others have invented.

I am not. You selectively choose passages from the book, which you like, and explain away the rest.

Because you're an expert on the topic, are you?

I'll take this reply as; you have no valid response here. Thanks.

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

tam Is He, though? Because I don't recall realworldjack saying that Christ told him that He does not speak anymore.

POI Then please address his question in post 4 (i.e.)

Simply because there have been those in the past who may have heard directly from God, is not any sort of instruction for us to expect to hear directly from God. The Biblical authors never instruct Christians to expect to hear directly from God. Rather, their instruction is to pay heed to the Word already spoken. Why in the world would one suppose that simply because an author reports on hearing directly from God, that we should expect to do the same?

[tam]

Peace to you,

If they had everything right before Christ, POI, then why would He have had to come to explain and teach and correct? Why would the TRUTH (I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life) have been needed if the people had the truth already? If God could have been known by "the book", why did Christ say, "No one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him?"

This does not address my prior assessment.

It does. I think you just don't see it because you are not looking at Christ to see and know the Father.

If Jesus agrees with his dad, then Jesus too sometimes endorses genocide, infanticide, and certain types of rape.

This is backward. Look at Christ FIRST, then compare everything else to Him and what HE shows of the Father.

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

I didn't answer it because it was not relevant.

Look to Christ FIRST.

You're debating against a "strawman" that you or others have invented.

I am not. You selectively choose passages from the book, which you like, and explain away the rest.

I am not going to play 'uh huh', 'nuh uh' with you POI.

I have explained what I do in the previous posts.

Because you're an expert on the topic, are you?

I'll take this reply as; you have no valid response here. Thanks.

I'll take this as a 'no, I'm not, and I am, therefore, not qualified to say what is or is not necessary.'

tam Is He, though? Because I don't recall realworldjack saying that Christ told him that He does not speak anymore.

POI Then please address his question in post 4 (i.e.)

Simply because there have been those in the past who may have heard directly from God, is not any sort of instruction for us to expect to hear directly from God. The Biblical authors never instruct Christians to expect to hear directly from God. Rather, their instruction is to pay heed to the Word already spoken. Why in the world would one suppose that simply because an author reports on hearing directly from God, that we should expect to do the same?

I did this, in a previous post to you, on this thread.

The point that you zipped past of course: Christ did not say a different thing to realworldjack than He did to me.


Peace still to you.

[POI]

This is backward.

No tam, it's not. You use the book to explain your plight when it is convenient to do so.

I didn't answer it because it was not relevant.

Then any verse you read or use from the same book is also not relevant.

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

tam I'll take this as a 'no, I'm not, and I am, therefore, not qualified to say what is or is not necessary.'

POI But you are qualified to apply a special exception for Saul? Further, then please stop telling folks to open their ears and/or listen.

tam I did this

POI Did Realworldjack respond?

[tam]

Peace to you,

This is backward.

No tam, it's not.

Yes, POI, it is.

You use the book to explain your plight when it is convenient to do so.

Is that not the very thing that you are doing?

I am looking to Christ.

You are looking to a book (or well, the parts of the book you prefer so you can argue against it.) Yet, in looking to that book, you are ignoring what is about and/or from Christ.

I didn't answer it because it was not relevant.

Then any verse you read or use from the same book is also not relevant.

I meant your question was not relevant.

Look to Christ FIRST.

tam I'll take this as a 'no, I'm not, and I am, therefore, not qualified to say what is or is not necessary.'

POI But you are qualified to apply a special exception for Saul?

It is not about me being qualified for something. It is about your claims about what is or is not needed. How do you know what is or is not needed?


[Even if just from the book, you should be able to see that Saul is an exception, unless you can point out another person in the entire NT who had such a drastic experience - and even SO, Paul still believed in God. So did Thomas, in case you wish to bring him up again. But we do have multiple examples of others who belong to Christ, hearing Christ (the Spirit). He also said Himself - as is written in that same book - that His sheep listen to His voice; that He had more sheep to call, that they too WOULD (future tense) listen to His voice.]

tam I did this

POI Did Realworljack respond?

Not that I have seen. But I do not require him to respond, nor is he under any obligation from me to respond. The words I posted were for him (and others who think like him) to ponder - and preferably, to ask Christ about, themselves.

Why do you ask me about realworldjack? Do you think he is going to agree with you that Christ told us two different things?


Peace again.

[POI]

Is that not the very thing that you are doing?

No. Harken back to the 6-minute video which you may or may not have watched. The dude mentions verses for which you both like and don't like. There is no point in debating the verses we both like and/or agree with. The difference is I do not ignore or hand-wave away the ones I don't. It's all or nothing --- some good, some bad, some strange, and some other.

I meant your question was not relevant.

Look to Christ FIRST.

It is relevant. If Christ agrees with his dad, then he agrees that it is sometimes okay to endorse the stuff you obviously do not like.

Does the Bible ever endorse these actions you do not like, yes or no?

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

tam It is not about me being qualified for something. It is about your claims about what is or is not needed. How do you know what is or is not needed?

POI If you state you are "not qualified to say what is or is not necessary", then I would suggest not repeatedly telling your interlocutors to open your ears (and/or) listen to his voice.

tam Even if just from the book, you should be able to see that Saul is an exception, unless you can point out another person in the entire NT who had such a drastic experience - and even SO, Paul still believed in God. So did Thomas, in case you wish to bring him up again. But we do have multiple examples of others who belong to Christ, hearing Christ (the Spirit). He also said Himself - as is written in that same book - that His sheep listen to His voice; that He had more sheep to call, that they too WOULD (future tense) listen to His voice.

POI No. What I see is that this God character does not require open ears or special listening. It's God's choice, not yours. I guess you are one of the lucky ones, that he decided to exchange with you.

Not that I have seen.

Bummer. I wonder why?

But I do not require him to respond, nor is he under any obligation from me to respond. The words I posted were for him (and others who think like him) to ponder - and preferably, to ask Christ about, themselves.

Kool. You know what he thinks and believes.

Do you think he is going to agree with you that Christ told us two different things?

I dunno? He never responded.

[tam]

[Data]

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.

Other than anecdotal and an atheistic philosophy what is the data to support the alternative? Put simply, what does the Bible indicate regarding the subject?

[POI]

[tam]