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]

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?

You are late to the part, but glad you joined. I think what you are saying, is that in your view, the Bible expresses that he no longer speaks to folks. Right?

If so, why assume any supernatural agency has ever spoke to anyone in the first place?

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

Another topic has risen. Tam and William believe Jesus speaks to them on the daily. And yet, you stated "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.". Who's wrong, and why?

[Data]

You are late to the part, but glad you joined.

Thank you. When I'm late I consider it just adding my two cents worth. As always some posts are of interest to the reader and some are not. Can't respond to them all and I tend to think they should be over once interested parties have added their own two cents worth. I think it toxic to drag it out, running in circles so I bow out.

I think what you are saying, is that in your view, the Bible expresses that he no longer speaks to folks. Right?

Right. At least not the same as in specific isolated cases in the Bible. Prophets, apostles. As needed. God wasn't chatting up everyone then, either. There were prophets and there were false prophets.

If so, why assume any supernatural agency has ever spoke to anyone in the first place?

You don't assume anything. You examine.

Another topic has risen. Tam and William believe Jesus speaks to them on the daily. And yet, you stated "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.". Who's wrong, and why?

William? Really? Okay. Well, I don't judge them. I can't say to them that their experience isn't real and isn't what they think it is. I think that would be arrogant and presumptuous. What I can respectfully do is disbelieve it for my own reasons. I'm talking specifically about talking in the literal sense. Not in the sense that a deceased loved one talks to someone every day in a figurative sense. The spirit of the person lives, figuratively, in the person's memories. If you're hearing literal voices and seeing literal manifestations there's a problem. Reflecting the spirit of the person as it manifests itself into your memories and experience is a different thing.

Further reading

[bjs1]

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.

I would not describe them as special circumstance, but rather as rare circumstances. The Bible covers 2,000 years of history. The number of people it records who conversed with God “to the extent” that Moses did could be counted on one hand with fingers left over. This doesn’t mean God does not/cannot communicate this way. However, it has been so uncommon that, statistically, it is more likely the person was mistaken or deceitful.

[Difflugia]

This doesn’t mean God does not/cannot communicate this way. However, it has been so uncommon that, statistically, it is more likely the person was mistaken or deceitful.

This argument isn't doing you any favors. If you replace "person" with "story," one should reasonably apply it to the Bible. The OP asks why Christians don't.

[bjs1]

This doesn’t mean God does not/cannot communicate this way. However, it has been so uncommon that, statistically, it is more likely the person was mistaken or deceitful.

This argument isn't doing you any favors. If you replace "person" with "story," one should reasonably apply it to the Bible. The OP asks why Christians don't.

My argument is in defense of the Christian faith. I understand if you want the Christian faith to be something other than what it is. If you wish to start a new thread entitled “Why Doesn’t God Do What I Want Him To More Often,” then feel free to do so. This thread was about “special circumstances,” and my response is that the premise is flawed.

[Difflugia]

My argument is in defense of the Christian faith.

You weren't asked to defend the Christian faith, but why you apply special reasoning to the Bible. You simply denied that you do, while exactly stating the reasoning you should be using. Statistically, God doesn't communicate via revelation, even within the story you're treating as special. Why do you afford it a level of trustworthiness that your own statement says you shouldn't?

I understand if you want the Christian faith to be something other than what it is.

I'm not the one that wants Christian faith to be something else. You're the one that's trying to redefine the exact behavior that OP is talking about.

If you wish to start a new thread entitled “Why Doesn’t God Do What I Want Him To More Often,” then feel free to do so.

My comment has nothing to do with why God does or doesn't do anything. It's why you are are admittedly inconsistent in the way you evaluate evidence.

This thread was about “special circumstances,” and my response is that the premise is flawed.

You calling it something else isn't evidence of a flaw in the original question.

[POI]

1 - Who says Christ agrees with everything written in the bible? Because I did not say that.

2 - Why are you not looking to Christ to know God? Christ - not the bible - is the Image of God. Christ - not the bible - is the Truth. Christ - not the bible - is the living Word of God.

1. The video explains it, if you would watch the entire thing. But, assuming you won't, all sorts of excuses persist for the verses which you do not like.


2. Not the Bible? The Bible is where I know what Christ said, nowhere else. I do not have a direct line of communication to him, like you apparently do.

I do not know the preferences of those women in that situation. I suspect their preference would have been that there would have been no battle (and certainly not one that their side lost). But that is not the situation. I also do not assume that the men were permitted to take them as wives against their will, and certainly not abuse them. Their choices in their situation would have been limited, but wife was probably the best option.

Uh huh.... Seeing your entire family slaughtered in front of you by the one who is later going to 'marry' you, having your head shaved, being given 30 days to grieve, and then surrendering to legal permission for him to penetrate you (because he likely spares you because he thought you were hot), is not rape at all. Got it. 'Keep the virgins for yourselves' is likely code for, "keep the young ones and/or the attractive ones for yourselves." As you stated, women had little rights. They probably had no choice. I guess she probably got really good at thinking about her happy place while these dudes legally had their way with them. But yea, who really knows?

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

tam Christ agreeing with His Father is not the same as Christ agreeing with everything as written in the OT.

POI So anything you do not like is either an error, or some other excuse. Got it. Tam, my entire point is that you are better than the God you believe in.

tam This is not an answer to the question that I asked you.

POI Because the Bible says God wills it, not us. Unless the verses you provided are now in error, or some other excuse. (i.e.)

Sacrifice and offering you did not desire— but my ears you have opened — burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require. Psalm 40:6

Or here:

Then He opens the ears of men, And seals their instruction. Job 33:16

Or here:

He opens their ears to instruction and commands that they return from iniquity. Job 36:10

tam No, I am showing you that you are incorrect in your claim that open ears and listening is not required.

POI No. It is not my choice, it's Gods. So please stop telling me to open my ears.

tam This doesn't take away God's choice in whose ears He opens. But that does not mean that a person cannot ask for ears to hear. In faith, in love, in hope. And keep asking. Keep knocking. As Christ said Himself to do

POI Since you are using a personal experience as evidence, so shall I. I tried this, as a believer, for decades, and nada. So I have asked others to have him reach me, and that does not work either. My wanting something is not what makes God reach me. It's completely his will, as your provided verses also suggest above

[POI]

You are late to the part, but glad you joined.

Thank you. When I'm late I consider it just adding my two cents worth. As always some posts are of interest to the reader and some are not. Can't respond to them all and I tend to think they should be over once interested parties have added their own two cents worth. I think it toxic to drag it out, running in circles so I bow out.

You don't assume anything. You examine.

I beg to differ. Yes, you first examine, and then you conclude/assume/other.

I now ask anew... After your examination, how have you concluded that these Bible characters and/or Bible authors are also not in deception/lying?

1) William? Really? Okay. Well, I don't judge them. 2) I can't say to them that their experience isn't real and isn't what they think it is. I think that would be arrogant and presumptuous. 3) What I can respectfully do is disbelieve it for my own reasons. 4) I'm talking specifically about talking in the literal sense. Not in the sense that a deceased loved one talks to someone every day in a figurative sense. The spirit of the person lives, figuratively, in the person's memories. If you're hearing literal voices and seeing literal manifestations there's a problem. Reflecting the spirit of the person as it manifests itself into your memories and experience is a different thing.

5) Further reading

1) Start at post 19.
2) Well, you publicly pronounced it, in the OP. You are just being respectful, and not saying it directly to him or tam.
3) Yes, and I will be happy to read the well thought out exchange between yourself and tam/William, as you all have completely conflicting ideas using the exact same book.
4) Here, we are referring to "direct revelation" from Christ, as opposed to anything you may instead be suggesting.
5) I skimmed the link. The part about "speaking in tongues" looks to speak volumes. "They all spoke differing languages".

[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.

I would not describe them as special circumstance, but rather as rare circumstances. The Bible covers 2,000 years of history. The number of people it records who conversed with God “to the extent” that Moses did could be counted on one hand with fingers left over. This doesn’t mean God does not/cannot communicate this way. However, it has been so uncommon that, statistically, it is more likely the person was mistaken or deceitful.

Like Realworldjack, in post 4, you are not addressing the OP. See response 66.

[POI]

My argument is in defense of the Christian faith.

You weren't asked to defend the Christian faith, but why you apply special reasoning to the Bible. You simply denied that you do, while exactly stating the reasoning you should be using. Statistically, God doesn't communicate via revelation, even within the story you're treating as special. Why do you afford it a level of trustworthiness that your own statement says you shouldn't?

I understand if you want the Christian faith to be something other than what it is.

I'm not the one that wants Christian faith to be something else. You're the one that's trying to redefine the exact behavior that OP is talking about.

If you wish to start a new thread entitled “Why Doesn’t God Do What I Want Him To More Often,” then feel free to do so.

My comment has nothing to do with why God does or doesn't do anything. It's why you are are admittedly inconsistent in the way you evaluate evidence.

This thread was about “special circumstances,” and my response is that the premise is flawed.

You calling it something else isn't evidence of a flaw in the original question.

Glad to see you back. You have a special nak of efficiently putting things how they are....