Making False Images of The Creator

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Making False Images of The Creator

Post #1

Post by William »

From the thread The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife
William wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 4:11 pm
onewithhim wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 3:21 pm Where would anyone get the idea that God "breathed himself into people?" He is too great and magnificent to be reduced to being inside any human being. If anyone thinks differently, they have a very skewed view of the Creator of this universe.
That is The Great Paradox which humans have been debating since the invention of theism...

...what does "One With Him" actually mean?

And both ideas [{a}We are are separate from The Creator or {b} We are particles of The Creators Consciousness] have their own rational and appear logical to that end[answering said question].
The only difference of significance is that {a} "We are are separate from The Creator" cannot accommodate {b} ["We are particles of The Creators Consciousness"], whereas realization of {b} still accommodates {a} in the sense that {a} is regarded as [usually] the initial step one has to take in order to then - perhaps - realize {b}.

...what does "One With Him" actually mean? According to {a} it means?
It means positions [1]&[2] are rational if thought so by those who believe they are {a} "Separate from The Creator" as they have decided to bow to that belief as "The Whole Truth".

...what does "One With Him" actually mean? According to {b} it means?
It means positions [1]&[2] are based upon part truth rather than whole truth if thought so by those who believe they are {b} "We are particles of The Creators Consciousness" as they have decided to realize the significance of such a thought as being that much closer to "The Whole Truth" than {a} [1]&[2] could ever be...the realization particularly being that there is more to the overall story than meets the eye.

Problematic with those in position {a} [positions [1]&[2]] are evident in the behaviors of those who support said positions in relation to this current reality experience [Life on Earth] - perhaps because they actively resist realization of {b} on the assumption that they "could not possible behave as if they were {b}" so at best, settle for {a} as it is [at least] a starting position for a potential future moment of realization...

...when the individual is sufficiently ready for the transformation of their understanding.

Meantime, information is continuing to come, which has the potential to assist the individual with said transformation...
The image of The Creator that most Christians have adopted is one which couldn't possibly stoop to "being human" [as in the comment "Where would anyone get the idea that God "breathed himself into people?"] because the image held by the questioner is that The Creator "is too great and magnificent to be reduced to being inside any human being." and follows that, with the unsupported assertion that "If anyone thinks differently, they have a very skewed view of the Creator of this universe."

Why should one think that a being who created this universe must be vainglorious and so utterly contemptuous of the creation [specifically the human form] that said Creator would assign other - separate - consciousnesses [beings] into human form It considers somehow unworthy of Its self experiencing?
So we have an image of a kind of mad scientist mucking with things he has little to no understanding of, just to lord it over "them".

I do not see in the creation any such hint of such an image of The Creator.

What I do see is human fabrication - how most humans might behave if they were in similar position as The Creator - a false image [graven] which is created and worshiped by humans who cannot [will not?] accept that any Creator would lower Itself ["Himself" as Christians would say] so much as to be "a little lower than the angels" as the mythology has it imagined.

How indeed does the Creator create Life outside of Itself, and then deem that Life to be "less than" - even if it was created that way - where is the life The Creator used to animate the creation with being sourced, if NOT from The Creator itself?

Such as, logically this [sourcing Life elsewhere] is an unnecessary edition which is placed into the human psyche as a means of attempting to hold fast and high and almighty false image in such minds...enthroned as it is upon the imaginations of all those who believe such.

Image

The catch phrase "We are not worthy" is a significant mantra in its ability to help the individual to resist realization that they are a particle of The Creators Consciousness.

Could this type of expression be happening because the images Christians have created of The Creator are false [therefore 'skewed'] and as such, not a trustworthy source in which to find a wholesome representation of "The Creator of This Universe"?

Q: Given the above, how can any image of The Creator of The Universe be a True Image?
Last edited by William on Tue Jun 01, 2021 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Making False Images of The Creator

Post #31

Post by William »

[Replying to tam in post #31]
William, I have never claimed that I can produce visual or audio evidence for you or anyone else.
Yes I am aware of that Tam.
I have said that if one wants to know the truth of anything (including anything I have shared), then one can and should go to the source, the Truth Himself: Christ Jaheshua.
Indeed - it is what most Christians say. They also agree on where they believe the source - the Truth Himself - is located. In the writings of the Bible.
I have not claimed the Universe is the image of The Creator. Rather I have made it clear that we should be able to get some idea of The Creators character and personality and motivation/agenda by observing and learning to understand the Creation.
"Some" idea, perhaps,
You seem in doubt. Do you think there is a chance we can get no idea of The Creators character and personality and motivation/agenda by observing and learning to understand the Creation?
though with missing puzzle pieces and an incomplete picture, I'm not sure how you would know which ideas are correct and which are incorrect.
Personal experience is adequate - placing the pieces together is part of the puzzle. Leaving pieces out is not.
Especially if creation has been subject to frustration, at least for a time.
I have seen no evidence of that.
I'm also not sure what about Christ you think contradicts 'the universe' to begin with.
It isn't that at all. It is the supposed witnesses of Christ who - in their telling, make it appear that way.
Christianity is not Christ.
A good reason as any not to call oneself a "Christian" - works for me.
Christianity is also not a Christian. Christianity is a religion. A Christian is a person who is both a disciple of Christ and anointed with holy spirit.
Then why confuse things at all Tam. Let Christians and Christianity be what they are and those like yourself can call yourselves "Disciples". That way at least, the confusion is far less for folk to try and work out.
The battle is not to reclaim a lost label for Christ, while telling most Christians they are "not really true Christians." and don't forget, the label was not one which Christ placed upon his followers. That dubious award goes to those who first used it to replace "Disciple".
Christianity does not make a person a Christian.
Following Christ does not make a person a Christian either...it does however, make them a Disciple.
CHRIST makes a person Christian (anointing them with holy spirit). Christ is the One who made me Christian. I am not ashamed of Him, or of belonging to Him.
That is where I think you are confused Tam. Christ never made Christians. Christ made disciples which then eventually became apostles.
I don't dress The Creator up in religious ideas and superstitions, or regard The Creator as 'good' or 'evil' or 'father' or 'mother' or sitting on a throne in some dimension getting ready to judge the whole of human kind for offenses committed - and other stuff like that which the bible images...
You don't place those particular images onto the idea of the Creator.
Then what 'particular images' do you think I place on The Creator?
Not so. I make observations of the creation and from that deduce the most likely ideas of what The Creator might be like, and I do this to offset claims made by religious folk which tell us who and what The Creator is like which are most obviously out of synch with what we observe in the creation.
Claims such as...?
Really? You want me to tell you again?
That is not a claim. It is building upon an idea that as particles of Creator Consciousness,
That - the bold and underlined - is a claim.
No it is not. It comes from the premise that "We exist within a creation" and it is a premise you yourself appear to think is true.
The idea that we are particles of Creator consciousness is itself built upon the shared data [at our fingertips no less] of individuals having NDEs OOBEs and skills with Astral Travel [ability to leave ones body and consciously experience alternate realities] various spiritual teachings to do with such things as alternate realities [Jesus and The Fathers Kingdom as an example] and other data which - when connected - allow for us to understand the possibility that things are not necessarily as human being have being led to believe - either of themselves - or of the next phase experience [afterlife].
These stories are claims and hearsay as well are they not?
Of course they are.
Because while you claim to have an OOBE (and I am not suggesting you did not, your personal experience is your personal experience), you do not claim to have had the same experience of others re: afterlife experiences.
Correct. There are some things in the experiences which are the same. Primarily that the experience are alternate to this reality experience we all currently share.

Given the topic - one cannot share the experiences with others and not be making a claim Tam. Given the topic one cannot expect to have supporting evidence that the claims [the experiences shared] actually were experienced by those who tell their stories of their experiences.
Not to mention the fact that you (and they) must then interpret both your experience and what you saw in your experience.
What do you mean 'interpret'? When you share an experience something that happened to you in this world, do you interpret what you experience and what you saw? All we are doing is conveying information of experience.

So you will have to provide more detail on what you mean here.
We discussed that here where you claim that others have had experiences of a hell in an afterlife of their own making:
The link only goes to a post where 'we' did not 'discuss' anything Tam.
You also accept the claims that you said others give about 'afterlife experiences' ... but at the same time you reject the claims made in the experience that John of Patmos had and recorded (Revelation).

At no time have I rejected any Biblical experience those authors have shared Tam. You really need to desist with these misrepresentations of what it is I do. Either that, or provide evidence to support your claim. I expect more from a disciple of Christ than unsupported accusation...

As to your writing "which doesn't make much sense to me, because if it was an afterlife experience, how then are they back in this life to share it?" it doesn't make sense to me that someone claiming to be a Disciple of Christ would find the idea of folk experiencing alternate realities and reporting these to others, as some thing which 'doesn't make sense'. The Bible itself, is full of such reports.

Perhaps your confusion is with the word 'afterlife'?

Really I am just referring to next phase experience - "alternate realities" - "The Fathers Kingdom". etc..
William, among other things, you dress up who/what you call the Creator as a being who wants/needs to experience life (the good and the bad), through individual experiences from us. What makes you think that does not put an image in people's heads?
If it does, so what? It is better than the image Religion has put into their heads where The Creator as a particular individual, sometimes sitting on a throne, etc...you know of these images so I do not need to list them...

An image of The Creator who is not separate from The Creation is at least a step in the good direction...why would you disagree?
I have never claimed that Christ is not a part of the whole journey into realization. I have often shared that my current knowledge come through that path itself. Yet I am often accused of being deceived by the devil or some other such accusation simply because I share knowledge which isn't recognized by any Christian organization, and even individual Christians like yourself who do not appear to involved themselves in organized Christianity, treat my knowledge with a type of contempt because it is not something they have been shown, as if somehow that is all the reason they require to make judgements of that nature.
That is not the reason for rejecting your claims, William, or even for believing you have been deceived. It is not about something that might not yet be known. It is because of what you say that contradicts Christ. It is because some things you say (such as on the thread linked above) make no sense; you use some of the phrases that Christ used that you get from the bible (In my Father's house there are many rooms), and then you twist that (add to it or take away from it) in a way that contradicts all the other things that He has said about that house and desiring to be in that house.
Not at all Tam.
It is what Christ remarked about his Fathers Kingdom, and the witness of those who experience Alternate realities and my own experience in Christ which altogether serve me with a greater image than those without [have not yet seen] can provide.

Such experience does not contradict what Christ said. Such experience confirms what Christ said.
As such I understand that there are realms [realties experienced] which are created through human belief systems and can and will be experienced as real.
It was YOU who decided to treat my invitation to come and play as 'an evil thing working against Christ".

If one is going to judge, then yes - one will wind up doing time in the Realm of Judgment.

Your comparing yourself greater than I in Christ is not a thing one should expect from a disciple of Christ even that there is biblical reference to the disciples of Christ arguing among themselves "Who is the greatest." - I think it is safe to assume that was before they actually pulled their heads in and got down to actually being disciples of Christ. Still in their collective embryonic stage as it were...hadn't been Born Again...
That is something religion does - and one of the reasons we have so many sects/denominations. Religion taking the truth that Christ taught - then adding to or taking away from the truth, perhaps to gain followers after itself, perhaps because people are not satisfied with 'manna' (that comes from Christ). They want all the various kinds of foods that "Egypt" offers them. (using the example of Israel in the wilderness grumbling about the food and longing for the food Egypt could give them, even if that meant they had to be enslaved by Egypt all over again, even if it meant they would die in Egypt).
See my comment above...
How is rejecting the truth that Christ teaches not a denial of Him? How is rejecting His words and accepting the words of another, not rejecting Him? He SAID, "If you know me, you know my Father also. If you have seen me, you have seen my Father also."

He also said that He is the Truth, but you are calling Him a false image of God. One cannot be the Truth and at the same time, be false.
Some big accusations there about what have supposedly done Tam. You are probably best at this point to withdraw these OR support them with evidence.
I am questioning images presented of Christ which 'allow' people to make judgements against my and others positions based upon our actual experiences, as you are plainly doing.
As you also do, do you not?
No. But you do.
I don't even reject that you had an OOBE - maybe you did, maybe you didn't -
Point being, I am in Christ, and as such have reported all these things I have experienced. You have not [and do not wish to] experience such things, and somehow get from that, that I am "under suspicion".
I reject the conclusions you have drawn. For reasons stated.
What 'reasons stated'? That they do not align with your own experiences? That Christ does not take you to these places? That my witness is not of Christ?

Such judgment based conclusions are not yours to make Tam. You overstep.
There is no thing in your arguments which I can see that gives you any such right to judge others based upon your own belief that you are a "true Christian" and therefore anyone who does not see things as you do, are 'false'.
I did not judge others at all, and certainly not for the reason you have stated. But I am certainly permitted to use discernment. Why would Christ have warned us about false christs and false prophets if we were not permitted to test the claims that people make, to make sure we are not misled? Why would we be warned to test the inspired expressions, if there were no lies or lying spirits out there? And if we were not permitted to use discernment, why would Christ have said,

I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3 You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary. Rev 2:2, 3
Yet as I have pointed out, you have been misrepresenting me and coming to false conclusions. How is that an act of "discernment"?

Certainly I do not do this to you. You say you are a Disciple of Christ, I accept that at face value. Then you turn into a judge who compares her own walk with the witness of another and declares the other is false on account of the comparison. How is that just and truthful? How is that to be said to be an expected behavior of a Disciple of Christ?

What might be said of it is that it is no thing more than projection.

You know me not. Your misrepresentation of me is thus more likely to be sourced in your [current] self.
The bold/underlined from my statement and the bold/underlined from your statement do not match up. Can you reconcile those for me?
In what way do you mean they "do not match up"? Are you yet unaware that the imagery I am specifically critiquing has to do with beings upon thrones who are worshiped as Gods?
Why would Christ want me to treat him in such a manner, and call that truth?

Would I worship a father or mother or brother or sister or any form in that way? Is not Christ my father and mother and brother and sister and any other form requiring my care?

WE have never been instructed to idolize Christ, Tam. Such images are false.
Peace again to you!
Empty platitudes from the bench are pointless insults. There is no peace and cannot be any peace between me and those who judge me.

Image

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: Making False Images of The Creator

Post #32

Post by tam »

Peace again, and to the reader,
William wrote: Wed Jun 16, 2021 9:31 pm [Replying to tam in post #31]
William, I have never claimed that I can produce visual or audio evidence for you or anyone else.
Yes I am aware of that Tam.
I have said that if one wants to know the truth of anything (including anything I have shared), then one can and should go to the source, the Truth Himself: Christ Jaheshua.
Indeed - it is what most Christians say. They also agree on where they believe the source - the Truth Himself - is located. In the writings of the Bible.
I have not said that, nor do I believe that. He is a person, a living person. Some of His words and deeds are simply recorded in the bible.
I have not claimed the Universe is the image of The Creator. Rather I have made it clear that we should be able to get some idea of The Creators character and personality and motivation/agenda by observing and learning to understand the Creation.
"Some" idea, perhaps,
You seem in doubt. Do you think there is a chance we can get no idea of The Creators character and personality and motivation/agenda by observing and learning to understand the Creation?
I answered this question with the rest of my sentence below:
though with missing puzzle pieces and an incomplete picture, I'm not sure how you would know which ideas are correct and which are incorrect.
Personal experience is adequate - placing the pieces together is part of the puzzle. Leaving pieces out is not.
Sometimes a piece of the puzzle only appears to be in the correct place, until another piece comes along and takes its place, which might then change the image altogether.
Especially if creation has been subject to frustration, at least for a time.
I have seen no evidence of that.
How would you see evidence of that?
I'm also not sure what about Christ you think contradicts 'the universe' to begin with.
It isn't that at all. It is the supposed witnesses of Christ who - in their telling, make it appear that way.
Well I never said 'witnesses of Christ' are the image of God. I said Christ is the image of God.
Christianity is not Christ.
A good reason as any not to call oneself a "Christian" - works for me.
Christianity is also not a Christian. Christianity is a religion. A Christian is a person who is both a disciple of Christ and anointed with holy spirit.
Then why confuse things at all Tam.


How confusing can it be since I just explained it? Explaining that Christ is not Christianity requires an explanation as well, but that doesn't mean we stop calling Christ, Christ.
Let Christians and Christianity be what they are and those like yourself can call yourselves "Disciples".


For one, that would be incomplete. A Christian is a disciple of Christ, but also anointed with holy spirit. A disciple of Christ is not necessarily anointed with holy spirit, and therefore, not necessarily (yet) Christian.

Originally I had explained the following in my previous post, but took it out. I will explain it this time though so you (or the reader) can understand.

Many years ago, I used to only call myself a follower of Christ, and I avoided using the word 'Christian' (I can't remember my exact reasoning, except to distance myself from the negative connotations of "Christianity" perhaps). But as I was typing an explanation of why I do not call myself Christian to someone on another forum, my Lord asked me,

"Are you ashamed of me?"

I immediately stopped typing, shocked, because I had not thought of it that way before. I answered, "No, Lord. I am not ashamed of you!" And I have never hesitated to call myself Christian since.

I care far more about what my Lord thinks, than what anyone else thinks, including myself.
The battle is not to reclaim a lost label for Christ, while telling most Christians they are "not really true Christians." and don't forget, the label was not one which Christ placed upon his followers. That dubious award goes to those who first used it to replace "Disciple".
Christian just = anointed one. There are also false christs/false christians/false anointed ones. The apostles were anointed when Christ breathed holy spirit upon them, making them Christian (anointed ones). Same with the people at Pentecost. That is the anointing, the baptism of holy spirit which Christ does.

Christianity does not make a person a Christian.
Following Christ does not make a person a Christian either...it does however, make them a Disciple.
This is correct.

But a Christian is both a disciple (of Christ) and one who is anointed with holy spirit. Called AND CHOSEN.
CHRIST makes a person Christian (anointing them with holy spirit). Christ is the One who made me Christian. I am not ashamed of Him, or of belonging to Him.
That is where I think you are confused Tam. Christ never made Christians. Christ made disciples which then eventually became apostles.
I am not confused on this, William. I know what my Lord has said and taught me on this matter.
Not so. I make observations of the creation and from that deduce the most likely ideas of what The Creator might be like, and I do this to offset claims made by religious folk which tell us who and what The Creator is like which are most obviously out of synch with what we observe in the creation.
Claims such as...?
Really? You want me to tell you again?
I asked because I do not know what you are referring to so I cannot examine it... so yes, I want you to tell me (again, if indeed you told me before and I have forgotten it).
That is not a claim. It is building upon an idea that as particles of Creator Consciousness,
That - the bold and underlined - is a claim.
No it is not. It comes from the premise that "We exist within a creation" and it is a premise you yourself appear to think is true.
Can claims not come from premises?
Not to mention the fact that you (and they) must then interpret both your experience and what you saw in your experience.
What do you mean 'interpret'? When you share an experience something that happened to you in this world, do you interpret what you experience and what you saw? All we are doing is conveying information of experience.

So you will have to provide more detail on what you mean here.
I mean something like this:

There have been claims of people going to hell (or to heaven) that have been recanted as lies (lies told to sell books; get publicity; lies that were pressured upon them by others, etc.) That is a fact. People also dream (I see no reason why a person could not dream during a near-death experience). So they might simply be relaying their experience from a dream of their own making (or nightmare, as it were). And even if it were a vision, that does not mean that they understood the meaning; they may have inserted their own belief system onto the meaning of their dream or vision.
We discussed that here where you claim that others have had experiences of a hell in an afterlife of their own making:
The link only goes to a post where 'we' did not 'discuss' anything Tam.
No one discusses anything in a single post. I linked to a post on a thread where we discussed things. The reader can verify that for themselves.
You also accept the claims that you said others give about 'afterlife experiences' ... but at the same time you reject the claims made in the experience that John of Patmos had and recorded (Revelation).

At no time have I rejected any Biblical experience those authors have shared Tam.


That is not what I said. Note more carefully:

but at the same time you reject the claims made in the experience that John of Patmos had and recorded (Revelation).
You really need to desist with these misrepresentations of what it is I do.


As you can see above, you misread.
Either that, or provide evidence to support your claim. I expect more from a disciple of Christ than unsupported accusation...
To support the actual claim I made? Sure:

I had said this:

Hell- the meaning of the word translated from sheol or hades - is the world of the dead, where the dead (not in Christ) go to await the (second) resurrection. This is explained on the thread about hell. The dead (in Christ) go under the altar (as shown in the vision John received in Revelation, also explained in the other thread).

You responded with this:

The author of revelations may well have been experiencing something which he created for himself through his own beliefs about 'what happens when we die' and may even be a fictional invention of The Church which produced the bible and from where you take the story as 'the truth' as to what to expect in your afterlife experience. - William

On another post in that same thread, you also said this:

And in that, go along with the idea that those authors were deceived by their own beliefs and did not realize that what they experienced [in the Case of John who wrote what The Church later called "Revelations"] was a product of their own expectations. - William, viewtopic.php?p=1030702#p1030702

You do not reject that he had an experience (well, you do suggest that it might be a fictional invention of 'the church'), but you do not accept the truth of the claims from his experience, of what he saw and heard.

As to your writing "which doesn't make much sense to me, because if it was an afterlife experience, how then are they back in this life to share it?" it doesn't make sense to me that someone claiming to be a Disciple of Christ would find the idea of folk experiencing alternate realities and reporting these to others, as some thing which 'doesn't make sense'. The Bible itself, is full of such reports.

Perhaps your confusion is with the word 'afterlife'?
Yes, it was the word afterlife, combined with all the talk about experiencing such things after one has died.

William, among other things, you dress up who/what you call the Creator as a being who wants/needs to experience life (the good and the bad), through individual experiences from us. What makes you think that does not put an image in people's heads?
If it does, so what? It is better than the image Religion has put into their heads where The Creator as a particular individual, sometimes sitting on a throne, etc...you know of these images so I do not need to list them...
So then we can move forward with the understanding that you have also made an image simply by describing attributes of who/what you call the Creator. You just think that your image is better than other images.

God is a particular individual. He does have throne (a seat of rulership). The picture is just a depiction of that. The authority, however, is real. His Son - the ruler over all God's creation - is second only to His Father.

I have never claimed that Christ is not a part of the whole journey into realization. I have often shared that my current knowledge come through that path itself. Yet I am often accused of being deceived by the devil or some other such accusation simply because I share knowledge which isn't recognized by any Christian organization, and even individual Christians like yourself who do not appear to involved themselves in organized Christianity, treat my knowledge with a type of contempt because it is not something they have been shown, as if somehow that is all the reason they require to make judgements of that nature.
That is not the reason for rejecting your claims, William, or even for believing you have been deceived. It is not about something that might not yet be known. It is because of what you say that contradicts Christ. It is because some things you say (such as on the thread linked above) make no sense; you use some of the phrases that Christ used that you get from the bible (In my Father's house there are many rooms), and then you twist that (add to it or take away from it) in a way that contradicts all the other things that He has said about that house and desiring to be in that house.
Not at all Tam.
It is what Christ remarked about his Fathers Kingdom, and the witness of those who experience Alternate realities and my own experience in Christ which altogether serve me with a greater image than those without [have not yet seen] can provide.

Such experience does not contradict what Christ said.
It does contradict His words. But we have had that conversation ad nauseum, so I will just post a couple of links to previous responses:


viewtopic.php?p=1030075#p1030075
viewtopic.php?p=1030598#p1030598

Your comparing yourself greater than I in Christ is not a thing one should expect from a disciple of Christ
Yeah, I'm not the one comparing myself to you. I am just holding up your claims to the Light and Truth (Christ).


How is rejecting the truth that Christ teaches not a denial of Him? How is rejecting His words and accepting the words of another, not rejecting Him? He SAID, "If you know me, you know my Father also. If you have seen me, you have seen my Father also."

He also said that He is the Truth, but you are calling Him a false image of God. One cannot be the Truth and at the same time, be false.
Some big accusations there about what have supposedly done Tam. You are probably best at this point to withdraw these OR support them with evidence.
I assume you meant to place the word "I" between 'what' and 'have' in your first sentence. On that assumption, if you want evidence for something that you, yourself said:

I am simply interested in seeing the support for your claim that there is one true image of The Creator of This Universe, when - most logically - all images have to be false, including the one you say is "The Christ" - William, bottom of post #25.

**


That should be enough, but in another post on this same thread, I said:

Seems to me that you understand your 'image' of the creator is false, but you want me (and others) to state that every image of the creator is false, including Christ (the Truth). That is just not going to work with me. - tammy

You responded:

Why not? Don't you see the logic in dropping the costumes which dress an Invisible Entity into something which presents as an image? - William, post 27

I am questioning images presented of Christ which 'allow' people to make judgements against my and others positions based upon our actual experiences, as you are plainly doing.
As you also do, do you not?
No. But you do.
Are you telling me you don't make any judgments (however you are using that word) against my position based on my actual experiences?

I reject the conclusions you have drawn. For reasons stated.
What 'reasons stated'? That they do not align with your own experiences?


That they do not align with what Christ teaches. As stated in the links above.

Certainly I do not do this to you. You say you are a Disciple of Christ, I accept that at face value. Then you turn into a judge who compares her own walk with the witness of another and declares the other is false on account of the comparison.


See above (re: judgment and comparison).

I am willing to accept that you have misunderstood me, rather than leaping to the conclusion (as you have done) that you have deliberately misrepresented me. You have also continued to state on the forum that I do not accept something unless it is written in the bible (and other things along those lines), and I have repeatedly denied this.
What might be said of it is that it is no thing more than projection.
Indeed, but the other way around perhaps?
The bold/underlined from my statement and the bold/underlined from your statement do not match up. Can you reconcile those for me?
In what way do you mean they "do not match up"?


Because on the one hand you agree that the Creator could have sent a living Image to represent Him, and on the other hand, you said that the Creator cannot be imaged. I am just asking you to reconcile that for me, because these two things seem to be in conflict.
Are you yet unaware that the imagery I am specifically critiquing has to do with beings upon thrones who are worshiped as Gods?
Perhaps. I thought you said that all images are false?
Why would Christ want me to treat him in such a manner, and call that truth?
Treat the FATHER in that manner?

“Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23But a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such as these to worship Him.


(He also spoke of thrones, the throne of His Father, and His throne. If He spoke of these things, then they are true. A literal throne or a figurative throne, but a seat of authority and a rulership, yes. Christ also shares His reign - the authority He received from His Father, all authority in heaven and on earth - though He is the Head, with His Bride for at least a thousand years.)
Would I worship a father or mother or brother or sister or any form in that way?
Christ did not seem to have a problem worshiping His Father. Note the 'we' in the quote above.

And your (flesh and blood) mother or father or brother or sister, etc, are not God (the God and Father of Christ).


**

You said in an earlier post (though you later changed that post) that you were content to leave things as they are and let them be sorted out later (not by us, but by God, or from my understand, by Christ). I am content to do that as well, if you still wish. Perhaps another time we might be able to pick this up; perhaps not.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Making False Images of The Creator

Post #33

Post by William »

[Replying to tam in post #33]
Indeed - it is what most Christians say. They also agree on where they believe the source - the Truth Himself - is located. In the writings of the Bible.
I have not said that, nor do I believe that.
So tell us which of the bible verses claiming to be Christs words, do you think are not Christs words?
He is a person, a living person.
You have meet the Christ in person?
Some of His words and deeds are simply recorded in the bible.
So tell us which of the bible verses claiming to be Christs words, do you think are not Christs words?
Personal experience is adequate - placing the pieces together is part of the puzzle. Leaving pieces out is not.
Sometimes a piece of the puzzle only appears to be in the correct place, until another piece comes along and takes its place, which might then change the image altogether.
Even that being the case, such would not 'change the image altogether'...that simply is not true Tammy...

Indeed, the misplaced piece still belongs somewhere in the picture...
Especially if creation has been subject to frustration, at least for a time.
I have seen no evidence of that.
How would you see evidence of that?
Your use of the word 'especially' implies that this is what has occurred. If you believe that is the case, where is the evidence?
Well I never said 'witnesses of Christ' are the image of God. I said Christ is the image of God.
I will keep that in mind when I encounter folk - such as yourself - claiming they are witnesses of Christ.
How confusing can it be since I just explained it? Explaining that Christ is not Christianity requires an explanation as well, but that doesn't mean we stop calling Christ, Christ.
I did not suggest anyone do that. What I suggested was for you to stop calling yourself a Christian.

"One Who Is Anointed" is not anointed to 'be a Christian' or be involved in the confusion of Christianity.
Let Christians and Christianity be what they are and those like yourself can call yourselves "Disciples".
For one, that would be incomplete. A Christian is a disciple of Christ, but also anointed with holy spirit. A disciple of Christ is not necessarily anointed with holy spirit, and therefore, not necessarily (yet) Christian.

Originally I had explained the following in my previous post, but took it out. I will explain it this time though so you (or the reader) can understand.

Many years ago, I used to only call myself a follower of Christ, and I avoided using the word 'Christian' (I can't remember my exact reasoning, except to distance myself from the negative connotations of "Christianity" perhaps). But as I was typing an explanation of why I do not call myself Christian to someone on another forum, my Lord asked me,

"Are you ashamed of me?"

I immediately stopped typing, shocked, because I had not thought of it that way before. I answered, "No, Lord. I am not ashamed of you!" And I have never hesitated to call myself Christian since.

I care far more about what my Lord thinks, than what anyone else thinks, including myself.
On the contrary. It is what you think. [Your] Lord simply asked you a question, and you appear to have immediately taken on the defensive in your answer, because apparently the question seemed more like an accusation [and we both know where accusations derive, right?].

If it were me, I would have answered "Of course not Lord. You know my heart. I do not see you in Christianity. I would be ashamed to call myself a Christian, because of that. When I think of you, I do not think of Christianity. When I communicate with you, it is not through Christianity. When I hear your voice, it is not through the Christian handbook. You are a real person who is not controlled by Christianity."

To which The Lord would have replied "Well done my good and faithful Friend - you have come far..."
The battle is not to reclaim a lost label for Christ, while telling most Christians they are "not really true Christians." and don't forget, the label was not one which Christ placed upon his followers. That dubious award goes to those who first used it to replace "Disciple".
Christian just = anointed one.
Christ = anointed one

Christians = [from the link] "The term "Christian" used as an adjective is descriptive of anything associated with Christianity or Christian churches, or in a proverbial sense "all that is noble, and good, and Christ-like."[9] It does not have a meaning of 'of Christ' or 'related or pertaining to Christ'."
The apostles were anointed when Christ breathed holy spirit upon them, making them Christian (anointed ones).
Nope. I see no good reason to believe this. You need to accompany that statement with supporting evidence...it appears to be a waste of effort trying to uphold the name "Christian" and time trying to reclaim a title which Christ never bestowed on anyone who followed him...at least - I have seen no evidence to support this doctrine. I can see how it might distract the individual, and certainly after what you have shared relating to what you thought was a accusation from The Lord about you being ashamed of him...it appears you have gone off on a tangent in that regard...
That is where I think you are confused Tam. Christ never made Christians. Christ made disciples which then eventually became apostles.
I am not confused on this, William. I know what my Lord has said and taught me on this matter.
Yet the way you said it Tam, Your Lord asked you if you were ashamed of him. That does not come across as something which appears to be a good example of a healthy working relationship - so leads one to wonder if the accusation came from the accuser and if Your Lord is the accuser.

Perhaps the accuser is the one who wants you wasting your time on frivolous missions such as fighting for the title of "Christian"?
There have been claims of people going to hell (or to heaven) that have been recanted as lies (lies told to sell books; get publicity; lies that were pressured upon them by others, etc.) That is a fact.
That certainly is something we all should keep in mind. We should not however, allow it to become a reason for why we do not investigate for ourselves where possible and also not allow it to become a reason as to reject all stories outright, because some stories have been shown to be fabricated.

Some have falsely accused others of Rape. This too is a fact. This does not mean that we should regard all accusations of Rape as false.
People also dream (I see no reason why a person could not dream during a near-death experience).
There is a definite connect between belief, imagination, dreams, lucid dreams and OOBEs. All have to do with consciousness, and various stages of conscious awareness.
So they might simply be relaying their experience from a dream of their own making (or nightmare, as it were). And even if it were a vision, that does not mean that they understood the meaning; they may have inserted their own belief system onto the meaning of their dream or vision.
Which connects with what I describe in the thread "The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife"

[3] A "Person" is an eternal Spirit in human form and when the body dies, that Spirit immediately moves to the next phase and either knowingly or unknowingly creates for their self, their next experience, based upon a combination of mainly what they believe, what their overall attitude is and what they did in the previous phase.
No one discusses anything in a single post.
Not when the post is simple your own point of view, as was the case.
At no time have I rejected any Biblical experience those authors have shared Tam.
That is not what I said. Note more carefully:

but at the same time you reject the claims made in the experience that John of Patmos had and recorded (Revelation).
At no time have I rejected any Biblical experience those authors - including "John of Patmos" have shared Tam. You really need to desist with these misrepresentations of what it is I do.
I had said this:
Hell- the meaning of the word translated from sheol or hades - is the world of the dead, where the dead (not in Christ) go to await the (second) resurrection. This is explained on the thread about hell. The dead (in Christ) go under the altar (as shown in the vision John received in Revelation, also explained in the other thread).
You responded with this:
The author of revelations may well have been experiencing something which he created for himself through his own beliefs about 'what happens when we die' and may even be a fictional invention of The Church which produced the bible and from where you take the story as 'the truth' as to what to expect in your afterlife experience. - William
I see no example of rejecting anything John of Patmos [allegedly] wrote Tam. I am neither accepting this or rejecting this. I am pointing out what it might be [the product of].
On another post in that same thread, you also said this:
And in *that, go along with the idea that those authors were deceived by their own beliefs and did not realize that what they experienced [in the Case of John who wrote what The Church later called "Revelations"] was a product of their own expectations. - William,
"And in *what" Tam? If you are going to go to the trouble of quoting me, then at least do so in context.
You do not reject that he had an experience (well, you do suggest that it might be a fictional invention of 'the church'), but you do not accept the truth of the claims from his experience, of what he saw and heard.
Well that is different. I am under no obligation to accept his or anyone else's claims as 'truth' [or even fiction] I included what the author wrote in my investigation into things to do with the next phase, and my observations regarding that is that 'truth' is simply a matter of what people believe and experience.
Also as you pointed out;
Not to mention the fact that you (and they) must then interpret both your experience and what you saw in your experience.
Overall the observations are indeed about people having alternate experiences and reporting these, often with how it affected them - which is the 'interpretation' part.

I myself allow for others to interpret their personal experiences as they will. This does not mean I necessarily accept their interpretation as the whole truth of the matter.
As I have said - most folk do not even realize that they are creating their experience - designed specifically by their own [overall] Self, for the purpose of educating and aligning that aspect with said overall Self.

The primary ID of the aspect which has self-identified falsely [often referred to as 'Ego" or "Wayward".] - that which requires alignment with the whole Person. [Christ]
So then we can move forward with the understanding that you have also made an image simply by describing attributes of who/what you call the Creator. You just think that your image is better than other images.
Well you are starting to 'get it' but as I have mentioned already, Images are unavoidable. There I see an 'Image of The Creator" which is superior to that which the bible [overall] give us, simply because it is less confusing, far more complex, gives a more accurate picture of a being one might expect of one which has created this universe and in that - is more complete.

Choosing between something which is more or less complete - the choice has to be the more.
God is a particular individual. He does have throne (a seat of rulership). The picture is just a depiction of that. The authority, however, is real. His Son - the ruler over all God's creation - is second only to His Father.
That is the biblical rendition of the image of The Creator. When one observes the creation one can see immediately that any being who created that, is not someone who would be interested in being the recipient of praise offered to false imagery worshiped by human beings. That is an effigy. The Creator is real and such vainglorious behavior - I cannot equate with any entity which created this universe. I find it absurd.

Rather, my praise [for The Creator] goes toward such amazing things as can be found in the creation - and realization that such is far more appropriate than image-worship of entities upon thrones.
Because on the one hand you agree that the Creator could have sent a living Image to represent Him, and on the other hand, you said that the Creator cannot be imaged. I am just asking you to reconcile that for me, because these two things seem to be in conflict.
If there is one living Image which represents The Creator, it has to be The Earth.

But perhaps the whole universe is a living entity.

I find these to be more vast than some story carved into images as presented by ancient people who did not have the kind of access to the data we now have at our fingertips.
I am not persuaded to worship any human personality, simply because there are claims the personality is 'THE image of The Creator'.

The way I understand 'worship' is specific to acknowledgment and truthfulness. I do not consider it appropriate to worship analogies as something real and meant to be worshiped.

Have you ever sold all your possessions and given the proceeds to the poor and gone out into the world trusting that The Creator has your back?

To me, that seems a more appropriate way of worshiping than mere claims one is a sheep servant of one's Lord, hearing his 'voice' and accusing others of NOT being true, because what they said doesn't align with your particular experience.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: Making False Images of The Creator

Post #34

Post by tam »

Peace to you,

Sorry for the delayed response. I had it typed up some time ago, but I wasn't sure if we should continue. Looking at the post again though, there are some things that may need to be addressed. So...
William wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 4:21 pm [Replying to tam in post #33]
He is a person, a living person.
You have meet the Christ in person?
How does my answer change the fact that Christ is a person, a living person?

I have not met the POTUS in person, but that has no bearing on the fact that the POTUS is a person who is alive.
Some of His words and deeds are simply recorded in the bible.
So tell us which of the bible verses claiming to be Christs words, do you think are not Christs words?
What bearing does your question have on my statement? Just because some of His words and deeds are recorded in the bible does not mean that these are His only words and deeds. You have made the same point, yourself, have you not?
Personal experience is adequate - placing the pieces together is part of the puzzle. Leaving pieces out is not.
Sometimes a piece of the puzzle only appears to be in the correct place, until another piece comes along and takes its place, which might then change the image altogether.
Even that being the case, such would not 'change the image altogether'...that simply is not true Tammy...

Indeed, the misplaced piece still belongs somewhere in the picture...
Sure, but if you have a puzzle with misplaced pieces, the image made with those misplaces pieces is going to be different than the image made with rightly placed pieces. Yes?

Christ is the One who knows where each of the puzzle pieces rightly go.

Especially if creation has been subject to frustration, at least for a time.
I have seen no evidence of that.
How would you see evidence of that?
Your use of the word 'especially' implies that this is what has occurred
.

Yes, but my question to you was 'how would you see evidence of that'? If you are looking at creation as it is now for how it should be, then how would you see evidence that it had ever been subject to frustration?

How confusing can it be since I just explained it? Explaining that Christ is not Christianity requires an explanation as well, but that doesn't mean we stop calling Christ, Christ.
I did not suggest anyone do that. What I suggested was for you to stop calling yourself a Christian.
So what is the difference? If you are not making an issue out of using the word Christ (even though it may require an explanation that Christ is not Christianity), then why make an issue out of using the word Christian (even though it may require an explanation that Christian is not Christianity)? Why the double standard?
"One Who Is Anointed" is not anointed to 'be a Christian' or be involved in the confusion of Christianity.
Christians are anointed ones. Yes, Christians are also disciples of Christ, but disciples who have been anointed with holy spirit. As the apostles were anointed when Christ breathed holy spirit upon them; as were the people at Pentecost; as was Cornelius and his household. It is the same anointing being referred to at 1John 2:27.
Let Christians and Christianity be what they are and those like yourself can call yourselves "Disciples".
For one, that would be incomplete. A Christian is a disciple of Christ, but also anointed with holy spirit. A disciple of Christ is not necessarily anointed with holy spirit, and therefore, not necessarily (yet) Christian.

Originally I had explained the following in my previous post, but took it out. I will explain it this time though so you (or the reader) can understand.

Many years ago, I used to only call myself a follower of Christ, and I avoided using the word 'Christian' (I can't remember my exact reasoning, except to distance myself from the negative connotations of "Christianity" perhaps). But as I was typing an explanation of why I do not call myself Christian to someone on another forum, my Lord asked me,

"Are you ashamed of me?"

I immediately stopped typing, shocked, because I had not thought of it that way before. I answered, "No, Lord. I am not ashamed of you!" And I have never hesitated to call myself Christian since.

I care far more about what my Lord thinks, than what anyone else thinks, including myself.
On the contrary. It is what you think. [Your] Lord simply asked you a question, and you appear to have immediately taken on the defensive in your answer, because apparently the question seemed more like an accusation [and we both know where accusations derive, right?].
YOU hear accusations, William.

I heard a question (and my Lord does often teach with questions). No anger, no 'accusatory' tone.

The battle is not to reclaim a lost label for Christ, while telling most Christians they are "not really true Christians." and don't forget, the label was not one which Christ placed upon his followers. That dubious award goes to those who first used it to replace "Disciple".
Christian just = anointed one.
Christ = anointed one

Christians = [from the link] "The term "Christian" used as an adjective is descriptive of anything associated with Christianity or Christian churches, or in a proverbial sense "all that is noble, and good, and Christ-like."[9] It does not have a meaning of 'of Christ' or 'related or pertaining to Christ'."
The descriptions of the word "Christian" are based upon what people think it means (and the part about being a disciple is correct, but there is more, such as being anointed with holy spirit). The word Christian is derived from the root word Christ (which means Anointed One; or Chosen One as in the case with Messiah), derived from root the word chrio (to anoint). https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... lt/tr/0-1/

The apostles were anointed when Christ breathed holy spirit upon them, making them Christian (anointed ones).
Nope. I see no good reason to believe this.


Is it just the word Christian you are having trouble accepting... or is it also the anointing of holy spirit?
You need to accompany that statement with supporting evidence...it appears to be a waste of effort trying to uphold the name "Christian" and time trying to reclaim a title which Christ never bestowed on anyone who followed him...at least - I have seen no evidence to support this doctrine.
Okay, please note the following translation:

and having found him, he brought him to Antioch, and it came to pass that they a whole year did assemble together in the assembly, and taught a great multitude, the disciples also were divinely called first in Antioch Christians. Acts 11:26

https://biblehub.com/acts/11-26.htm

Most translations leave out the 'divinely' part, but the above is from the Young's LITERAL Translation.

The word rendered 'divinely called' is chrēmatizō.

χρηματίζω chrēmatízō, khray-mat-id'-zo; from G5536; to utter an oracle (compare the original sense of G5530), i.e. divinely intimate; by implication, (compare the secular sense of G5532) to constitute a firm for business, i.e. (generally) bear as a title:—be called, be admonished (warned) of God, reveal, speak.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... lt/tr/0-1/

If you scroll down you can find examples of how it is used, such as the following from Hebrews 12:25:

See, may ye not refuse him who is speaking, for if those did not escape who refused him who upon earth was divinely speaking -- much less we who do turn away from him who speaketh from heaven,


Perhaps the accuser is the one who wants you wasting your time on frivolous missions such as fighting for the title of "Christian"?
If it is such a frivolous matter, why does it matter so much to you? You are the one making the suggestions as to what I should or should not call myself.

You do not reject that he had an experience (well, you do suggest that it might be a fictional invention of 'the church'), but you do not accept the truth of the claims from his experience, of what he saw and heard.
Well that is different. I am under no obligation to accept his or anyone else's claims as 'truth' [or even fiction] I included what the author wrote in my investigation into things to do with the next phase, and my observations regarding that is that 'truth' is simply a matter of what people believe and experience.
But truth cannot be a matter of what people believe and experience. For the simple fact that people can and do believe things that are false. That would render truth to be something false, would it not? That makes no sense. True is the opposite of false.

God is a particular individual. He does have throne (a seat of rulership). The picture is just a depiction of that. The authority, however, is real. His Son - the ruler over all God's creation - is second only to His Father.
That is the biblical rendition of the image of The Creator.


Christ also taught these things about His Father.

When one observes the creation one can see immediately that any being who created that, is not someone who would be interested in being the recipient of praise offered to false imagery worshiped by human beings.


A - I said nothing about 'praise offered to false imagery worshiped by human beings'.

B - Aren't you now using the opposite logic as to what you used above? Above you said that just because there are people who lie about afterlife experiences, does not mean that we should assume all accounts are lies. But now you are saying that since there is praise and worship offered to false imagery, there should be no praise or worship offered to the true God?

Because on the one hand you agree that the Creator could have sent a living Image to represent Him, and on the other hand, you said that the Creator cannot be imaged. I am just asking you to reconcile that for me, because these two things seem to be in conflict.
If there is one living Image which represents The Creator, it has to be The Earth.
Clearly this is something you believe, and you are free to believe as you will. I just don't know why you bring Christ into it. He said to see Him is to see His Father. To know Him is to know His Father. That He speaks and acts just as His Father has taught Him.

But perhaps the whole universe is a living entity.

I find these to be more vast than some story carved into images as presented by ancient people who did not have the kind of access to the data we now have at our fingertips.
I am not persuaded to worship any human personality, simply because there are claims the personality is 'THE image of The Creator'.
See bottom of previous post as a response to worship and the Father (and the kind of worshippers the Father desires).
The way I understand 'worship' is specific to acknowledgment and truthfulness. I do not consider it appropriate to worship analogies as something real and meant to be worshiped. Have you ever sold all your possessions and given the proceeds to the poor and gone out into the world trusting that The Creator has your back? To me, that seems a more appropriate way of worshiping than mere claims one is a sheep servant of one's Lord, hearing his 'voice' and accusing others of NOT being true, because what they said doesn't align with your particular experience.
Didn't you just say that you understand worship to be specific to acknowledgement and truthfulness? But what, I should keep silent, not answer others' questions, not bear witness to the truth that my Lord lives and speaks, that others can come to Him, that the door is still OPEN?

I've also never understood the accusation that a person does nothing more than make claims, as if there is no existence or deeds done outside the internet discussion board. That being said, a witness to Christ... bears witness to Christ. Wherever, whenever. In person, but also on the internet in this 'city' (or any other) where people gather.

To the rest, I responded in the previous post, so I will leave it be.


Peace again to you.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Making False Images of The Creator

Post #35

Post by William »

[Replying to tam in post #35]
How does my answer change the fact that Christ is a person, a living person?
I have not met the POTUS in person, but that has no bearing on the fact that the POTUS is a person who is alive.
You are claiming it as a fact, so I think it is a correct question to ask. The POTUS is not a good analogy, as we are speaking of someone who is clearly seen to be alive now.
William wrote:So tell us which of the bible verses claiming to be Christs words, do you think are not Christs words?
What bearing does your question have on my statement?
You have given the impression that you do not believe that everything written in the bible is true, so I am asking if you feel this is also the case with those things written in the bible as attributed to being spoken by the anointed.
Just because some of His words and deeds are recorded in the bible does not mean that these are His only words and deeds. You have made the same point, yourself, have you not?
Most certainly. Moreover, I have made the point that most of the words and deeds he said and did, have not been recorded in the bible.
Sure, but if you have a puzzle with misplaced pieces, the image made with those misplaces pieces is going to be different than the image made with rightly placed pieces. Yes?
As I already suggested, such misplaced pieces would be obvious as the image would show.
Christ is the One who knows where each of the puzzle pieces rightly go.
Places are prepared. I have not said otherwise, so am wondering why you call it into argument?
Yes, but my question to you was 'how would you see evidence of that'? If you are looking at creation as it is now for how it should be, then how would you see evidence that it had ever been subject to frustration?
I do not recall claiming that the Universe was [or is] 'subject to frustration'. Those are the words which you wrote, not me.
William wrote:I did not suggest anyone do that. What I suggested was for you to stop calling yourself a Christian.
So what is the difference? If you are not making an issue out of using the word Christ (even though it may require an explanation that Christ is not Christianity), then why make an issue out of using the word Christian (even though it may require an explanation that Christian is not Christianity)? Why the double standard?
It is not an issue which I made Tammy. If you go back and read the context of our conversation with an honest eye, you will see that I am engaging with the observation that it only confuses folk when they see Christians claiming other Christians are not 'true Christians'.
My suggestion [to anyone claiming to be a "true Christian" is that they resolve the confusion by understanding that that ship has sailed and calling oneself a "Christian" is meaningless to those who hear it, because of the confusion Christianity has injected into the world.
For The Creator of This Universe, is not the author of confusion
Christians are anointed ones. Yes, Christians are also disciples of Christ, but disciples who have been anointed with holy spirit.
That is one Christian's version of belief. We both know that it is not every Christian's version of belief.
Even taking your version of belief, how is it established that you are a disciple of Christ and function under the influence with the Holy Ghost?
William wrote:[Your] Lord simply asked you a question, and you appear to have immediately taken on the defensive in your answer, because apparently the question seemed more like an accusation [and we both know where accusations derive, right?].
YOU hear accusations, William.
It is written plainly enough Tammy. YOU wrote it that way.
  • "I used to only call myself a follower of Christ, and I avoided using the word 'Christian' "
  • But as I was typing an explanation of why I do not call myself Christian to someone on another forum, my Lord asked me,
  • "Are you ashamed of me?"
The voice which you claim is Christs voice asked the question. While I can agree there might be an implication of accusation in the way those words are framed, I can also agree that this might not actually be the case, but that it was framed that way in order to trigger [within YOU] the process of introspection.
  • I immediately stopped typing, shocked, because I had not thought of it that way before. I answered, "No, Lord. I am not ashamed of you!" And I have never hesitated to call myself Christian since.
So it was YOU Tammy, not me or The Lord, who considered the question an accusation. [you are projecting again]

That is why I wrote how I would have responded to the same question, if The Lord had asked it of me;
If it were me, I would have answered "Of course not Lord. You know my heart. I do not see you in Christianity. I would be ashamed to call myself a Christian, because of that. When I think of you, I do not think of Christianity. When I communicate with you, it is not through Christianity. When I hear your voice, it is not through the Christian handbook. You are a real person who is not controlled by Christianity."
It is telling that in your hurry to project YOU onto ME, you refrained from quoting the above - so your ignoring of the context of what I wrote in order to enable you to project your self onto my self, is noted for what it is - and example of untruthfulness on your part.

Therefore I cannot consider your argument to merit any other reply, but the critique I have given it.

In future, please think more about your words. I am doubting now that you are actually listening to who you claim you are listening to.
Is it just the word Christian you are having trouble accepting... or is it also the anointing of holy spirit?
If The Lord asked me that question after I gave him my reply, I would say to The Lord;

"Of course not Lord. You know my heart. I see you in The influence of The Holy Ghost. I would have no trouble accepting the anointing of The influence of The Holy Ghost. When I think of you, I think of The influence of The Holy Ghost. I do not think of Christianity. When I communicate with you, it is through The influence of The Holy Ghost it is not through Christianity. When I hear your voice, it is through The influence of The Holy Ghost not through the Christian handbook. You are a real person who is not controlled by Christianity."

But - of course, it is Tammy asking me that question, and not The Lord.

But my answer remains the same, regardless.
William wrote:You need to accompany that statement with supporting evidence...it appears to be a waste of effort trying to uphold the name "Christian" and time trying to reclaim a title which Christ never bestowed on anyone who followed him...at least - I have seen no evidence to support this doctrine.
Okay, please note the following translation:
I - much like you Tammy - do not consider the bible to be The Word of God. So while [what you offered] is the evidence of early Christian activity, there is nothing therein which say's The Lord requires those who follow him to call themselves "Christians" - twenty centuries later we have a wholesome reason for NOT identifying with Christians or using their handbooks as a substitute for the Voice of Truth.
William wrote:Perhaps the accuser is the one who wants you wasting your time on frivolous missions such as fighting for the title of "Christian"?
If it is such a frivolous matter, why does it matter so much to you? You are the one making the suggestions as to what I should or should not call myself.
I am in training. In the Next Phase. I will be doing more of the same, and will be based at the Hub of The Hologram Universes. I will have The Gem, which is able to transport me instantly to anywhere in The Hologram Universes [The Fathers Kingdom as The Lord spoke of it] and there will be instances where I will encounter folk who have created their Universe "just so" for themselves and offer them data which may help them move out from that and into higher knowledge.
But truth cannot be a matter of what people believe and experience.
Correct. This applies to Johns experiences as well.

For the simple fact that people can and do believe things that are false. That would render truth to be something false, would it not? That makes no sense. True is the opposite of false.
These are simply positions individual folk have the right to believe in as truth. There will always be at least partial truth involved but these cannot be said to not have falseness within them.

The key is to be lead into ALL Truth - so one is not under the false impression one is already in every way, there already. That certainly has not been established.
After all, YOU thought that it was true that you were being ashamed of The Christ because you did not call yourself a Christian. The Lord didn't tell you that it was true. You just assumed that The Lord was implying that in his question to you.

More likely, if The Lord was sure where you were at in relation to that, it may well have been an effort on his part to get you to take a closer look.

Otherwise you would have to argue that my [different] response to the same question, has to be untruthful.

When in Truth, my response is just as valid, and in no way an example of denying Christ.
Christ also taught these things about His Father.
There are;
  • The Historical Christ
  • The Biblical Christ
  • The Real Person Christ.
Ultimately if you are going to argue for the biblical one, then you are dressing up the real one with the image of the biblical one...which is somewhat putting the cart before the horse, as far as I can tell...but whatever, it is the author of confusion... it looks funny as a picture - like you have placed a piece in the puzzle, incorrectly...

Image


To the rest, I responded in the previous post, so I will leave it be.
What I asked you was this;
"Have you ever sold all your possessions and given the proceeds to the poor and gone out into the world trusting that The Creator has your back?"

I do not recall you giving any answer to this in "the previous post"...

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: Making False Images of The Creator

Post #36

Post by tam »

Peace to you all.
William wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 4:19 pm [Replying to tam in post #35]
How does my answer change the fact that Christ is a person, a living person?
I have not met the POTUS in person, but that has no bearing on the fact that the POTUS is a person who is alive.
You are claiming it as a fact, so I think it is a correct question to ask. The POTUS is not a good analogy, as we are speaking of someone who is clearly seen to be alive now.
I believe you have lost sight of the point. You implied that the source (whom I look to for truth) is located in the bible, and I stated that I look to Christ Himself (the living person).
Sure, but if you have a puzzle with misplaced pieces, the image made with those misplaces pieces is going to be different than the image made with rightly placed pieces. Yes?
As I already suggested, such misplaced pieces would be obvious as the image would show.
Not if you didn't know the image to begin with. Like I said, Christ is the One who knows where each of those puzzle pieces rightly go, so Christ (not ourselves, not our own ideas, not others' ideas) is the One to listen to if indeed you wish to know and be led into all truth.
William wrote:I did not suggest anyone do that. What I suggested was for you to stop calling yourself a Christian.
So what is the difference? If you are not making an issue out of using the word Christ (even though it may require an explanation that Christ is not Christianity), then why make an issue out of using the word Christian (even though it may require an explanation that Christian is not Christianity)? Why the double standard?
It is not an issue which I made Tammy. If you go back and read the context of our conversation with an honest eye, you will see that I am engaging with the observation that it only confuses folk when they see Christians claiming other Christians are not 'true Christians'.
This does not follow, William. Why would someone who is Christian need to stop calling themselves Christian just because there are false Christians out there? There are false Christs also, but that does not mean that Christ should not be called Christ. Since you don't have a problem with the latter, there must be some other reason for your objection to the former.
My suggestion [to anyone claiming to be a "true Christian" is that they resolve the confusion by understanding that that ship has sailed and calling oneself a "Christian" is meaningless to those who hear it, because of the confusion Christianity has injected into the world.
For The Creator of This Universe, is not the author of confusion
The confusion is not coming from God.

William wrote:[Your] Lord simply asked you a question, and you appear to have immediately taken on the defensive in your answer, because apparently the question seemed more like an accusation [and we both know where accusations derive, right?].
YOU hear accusations, William.
It is written plainly enough Tammy. YOU wrote it that way.
  • "I used to only call myself a follower of Christ, and I avoided using the word 'Christian' "
  • But as I was typing an explanation of why I do not call myself Christian to someone on another forum, my Lord asked me,
  • "Are you ashamed of me?"
The voice which you claim is Christs voice asked the question. While I can agree there might be an implication of accusation in the way those words are framed, I can also agree that this might not actually be the case, but that it was framed that way in order to trigger [within YOU] the process of introspection.
Therefore, as stated, no accusation. So you can drop all the implications that you made when suggesting it was an accusation.
  • I immediately stopped typing, shocked, because I had not thought of it that way before. I answered, "No, Lord. I am not ashamed of you!" And I have never hesitated to call myself Christian since.
So it was YOU Tammy, not me or The Lord, who considered the question an accusation. [you are projecting again]

That is why I wrote how I would have responded to the same question, if The Lord had asked it of me;
If it were me, I would have answered "Of course not Lord. You know my heart. I do not see you in Christianity. I would be ashamed to call myself a Christian, because of that. When I think of you, I do not think of Christianity. When I communicate with you, it is not through Christianity. When I hear your voice, it is not through the Christian handbook. You are a real person who is not controlled by Christianity."
It is telling that in your hurry to project YOU onto ME, you refrained from quoting the above - so your ignoring of the context of what I wrote in order to enable you to project your self onto my self, is noted for what it is - and example of untruthfulness on your part.
1 - Your response would not have applied to me, William. There would have been no point in questioning me to get me to realize something I already believed. My Lord taught me something I did not understand, something I had not realized. My Lord taught me the truth. My shock and remorse was my own, because I would never want - even inadvertently - to imply shame for Him.

You don't accept these things, perhaps because you think your reasoning is wise/best (as I once thought my reasoning was best), and because you believe you are right (as I once thought about myself). But what does that have to do with me? I simply countered your argument(s) that a) Christ did not make Christians and b) that one should not say they are Christian.

2 - I did not quote your response to that question in my previous response because a) the question was not asked of you; and b) your response would have made no sense coming from me; and...perhaps most important... c) because you made up a response from 'the lord', claiming that this is how 'the lord' would have answered you, including telling you that you did a good job.


I would never do something like that: make up a response from my Lord, put words in His mouth - including words of praise for myself - and then tell others this is what He would have said. Just the thought of something like that makes me uncomfortable. Not only do I have no right to do that, what if I was wrong? What if that is not what He would have said? Then I'm just adding to all the other lies out there about Christ, about God - and making that picture more and more confused and inaccurate. Why would I not just wait until I heard what He ACTUALLY had to say, and share that, rather than make up something?

I wanted nothing to do with what you did. That is why I did not quote it or even address it.
William wrote:Perhaps the accuser is the one who wants you wasting your time on frivolous missions such as fighting for the title of "Christian"?
If it is such a frivolous matter, why does it matter so much to you? You are the one making the suggestions as to what I should or should not call myself.
I am in training. In the Next Phase. I will be doing more of the same, and will be based at the Hub of The Hologram Universes. I will have The Gem, which is able to transport me instantly to anywhere in The Hologram Universes [The Fathers Kingdom as The Lord spoke of it] and there will be instances where I will encounter folk who have created their Universe "just so" for themselves and offer them data which may help them move out from that and into higher knowledge.
Regardless of what you believe, it is still you making an issue out of something you call a frivolous mission. So perhaps you should have been applying your question to yourself.
But truth cannot be a matter of what people believe and experience.
Correct. This applies to Johns experiences as well.

For the simple fact that people can and do believe things that are false. That would render truth to be something false, would it not? That makes no sense. True is the opposite of false.
These are simply positions individual folk have the right to believe in as truth. There will always be at least partial truth involved but these cannot be said to not have falseness within them.
William, do you agree or disagree with the following:


But truth cannot be a matter of what people believe and experience. For the simple fact that people can and do believe things that are false. That would render truth to be something false, would it not? That makes no sense. True is the opposite of false.

I'm asking point blank because you're dancing around it.
The key is to be lead into ALL Truth - so one is not under the false impression one is already in every way, there already. That certainly has not been established.
The One who leads people into all truth is Christ Himself. No one else. I cannot do it. You cannot do it. Religion cannot do it. Just Christ (who is Himself, the Truth).




Peace to you all.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Making False Images of The Creator

Post #37

Post by William »

tam wrote: Wed Jul 07, 2021 2:51 pm
William wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 4:19 pm [Replying to tam in post #35]

How does my answer change the fact that Christ is a person, a living person?
I have not met the POTUS in person, but that has no bearing on the fact that the POTUS is a person who is alive.
You are claiming it as a fact, so I think it is a correct question to ask. The POTUS is not a good analogy, as we are speaking of someone who is clearly seen to be alive now.
I believe you have lost sight of the point. You implied that the source (whom I look to for truth) is located in the bible, and I stated that I look to Christ Himself (the living person).
Your claim is unsupported so cannot be taken on your word alone.
Sure, but if you have a puzzle with misplaced pieces, the image made with those misplaces pieces is going to be different than the image made with rightly placed pieces. Yes?
As I already suggested, such misplaced pieces would be obvious as the image would show.[/quote]
Not if you didn't know the image to begin with. Like I said, Christ is the One who knows where each of those puzzle pieces rightly go, so Christ (not ourselves, not our own ideas, not others' ideas) is the One to listen to if indeed you wish to know and be led into all truth.
That may be the case, but then when one is accused by you of not knowing the Christ like you know the Christ, one - naturally enough - wonders about the accuser and whether the accuser is really connected to the Christ or to something other than the Christ. This leads to being reminded [from the bible];

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

and the rest of the story which goes with that.

I think - even as far as your claim goes, that you overstep by taking on the role of The Accuser in relation to your accusations against me and others, while doing so in the name of Christ. It seeds confusion.
William wrote:I did not suggest anyone do that. What I suggested was for you to stop calling yourself a Christian.
So what is the difference? If you are not making an issue out of using the word Christ (even though it may require an explanation that Christ is not Christianity), then why make an issue out of using the word Christian (even though it may require an explanation that Christian is not Christianity)? Why the double standard?
It is not an issue which I made Tammy. If you go back and read the context of our conversation with an honest eye, you will see that I am engaging with the observation that it only confuses folk when they see Christians claiming other Christians are not 'true Christians'.
This does not follow, William. Why would someone who is Christian need to stop calling themselves Christian just because there are false Christians out there? There are false Christs also, but that does not mean that Christ should not be called Christ. Since you don't have a problem with the latter, there must be some other reason for your objection to the former.


My 'objection' remains that your claim that Christ spoke to you and asked you if you were ashamed of him and that 'ever since then', you have called yourself a Christian, because you assumed that was what the question was about.
My concern is that you did not delve any further as to what Christ was wanting you to know and just assumed. The result has been that you are groomed in the role of an accuser of other folk who call themselves "Christians" because you claim they are not 'true' Christians like you claim that you are.
My suggestion [to anyone claiming to be a "true Christian" is that they resolve the confusion by understanding that that ship has sailed and calling oneself a "Christian" is meaningless to those who hear it, because of the confusion Christianity has injected into the world.
For The Creator of This Universe, is not the author of confusion
The confusion is not coming from God.
Then Christians who are causing the confusion are also not coming from The Creator.

William wrote:[Your] Lord simply asked you a question, and you appear to have immediately taken on the defensive in your answer, because apparently the question seemed more like an accusation [and we both know where accusations derive, right?].
YOU hear accusations, William.
It is written plainly enough Tammy. YOU wrote it that way.
  • "I used to only call myself a follower of Christ, and I avoided using the word 'Christian' "
  • But as I was typing an explanation of why I do not call myself Christian to someone on another forum, my Lord asked me,
  • "Are you ashamed of me?"
The voice which you claim is Christs voice asked the question. While I can agree there might be an implication of accusation in the way those words are framed, I can also agree that this might not actually be the case, but that it was framed that way in order to trigger [within YOU] the process of introspection.
Therefore, as stated, no accusation. So you can drop all the implications that you made when suggesting it was an accusation.
Not so fast. Clearly your decision to stop not calling yourself a Christian came about because of an accusation you perceived. That is the way you chose to word your story of why you decided to call yourself a Christian. Because you wanted to show that you were not ashamed.
Yet - if you would agree with me that the question was asked of you in order to trigger the process of introspection you might easily answer differently - as I did, to the same question.
  • I immediately stopped typing, shocked, because I had not thought of it that way before. I answered, "No, Lord. I am not ashamed of you!" And I have never hesitated to call myself Christian since.
So it was YOU Tammy, not me or The Lord, who considered the question an accusation. [you are projecting again]

That is why I wrote how I would have responded to the same question, if The Lord had asked it of me;
If it were me, I would have answered "Of course not Lord. You know my heart. I do not see you in Christianity. I would be ashamed to call myself a Christian, because of that. When I think of you, I do not think of Christianity. When I communicate with you, it is not through Christianity. When I hear your voice, it is not through the Christian handbook. You are a real person who is not controlled by Christianity."
It is telling that in your hurry to project YOU onto ME, you refrained from quoting the above - so your ignoring of the context of what I wrote in order to enable you to project your self onto my self, is noted for what it is - and example of untruthfulness on your part.
1 - Your response would not have applied to me, William. There would have been no point in questioning me to get me to realize something I already believed. My Lord taught me something I did not understand, something I had not realized. My Lord taught me the truth. My shock and remorse was my own, because I would never want - even inadvertently - to imply shame for Him.


So you tell yourself Tammy. And as a result of your conversion to Christianity, [because that is what a Christian is] you feel it appropriate to call other Christians 'false' and yourself 'true' - yet - this may well place you in the "there are those who call me "Lord Lord" category".
I see that your version of The Lord appeals to you...but you do require judging others as untrue in comparison to your self and your relationship with this 'real' person you believe is The Lord, in order for your particular Lord to be acceptable in your sight.
You don't accept these things, perhaps because you think your reasoning is wise/best (as I once thought my reasoning was best), and because you believe you are right (as I once thought about myself).
I do not accept your claim is true Tammy, because there is no supporting evidence that you are having a relationship with the Christ. That is good reasoning on my part and I am wise not to take your word for it.
But what does that have to do with me? I simply countered your argument(s) that a) Christ did not make Christians and b) that one should not say they are Christian.
Rome made Christians Tammy.
2 - I did not quote your response to that question in my previous response because a) the question was not asked of you; and b) your response would have made no sense coming from me; and...perhaps most important... c) because you made up a response from 'the lord', claiming that this is how 'the lord' would have answered you, including telling you that you did a good job.
That is what Friends do with one another. I did point out that over 20 centuries of seemingly un-christ-like behavior from Christians is a good enough reason not to identify with such.
I also pointed out that there seems little point in doing so, as it causes confusion.
I would never do something like that: make up a response from my Lord, put words in His mouth - including words of praise for myself - and then tell others this is what He would have said. Just the thought of something like that makes me uncomfortable.
On the contrary - why is it that you can claim the Christ speaks to you without providing the slightest piece of evidence to support this claim, and expect others to think you are not 'putting words into this voices mouth'?
Just because you refrain from accepting credit where credit is due from Christ, does not mean that you are somehow worthy. Surely covering your ears to such, is equal to putting words in Christs mouth Tammy. Either way it is a form of controlling what it is and what it isn't that you will accept from Christ...and exactly why you have given yourself permission to judge others as you do.
Obviously your particular relationship with Christ is "master/slave" and "Shepherd/sheep" but you would do well to remember that not everyone has the same relationship - every relationship will be different, so bear that in mind when you next feel the urge to judge others in the name of Christ.
Not only do I have no right to do that, what if I was wrong?
Would Christ not let you know? Is your relationship that edgy?
What if that is not what He would have said?
Why the past tense? What do you use to gauge 'what Christ 'would have said'? Is your relationship not in the moment, here and now?
Then I'm just adding to all the other lies out there about Christ, about God - and making that picture more and more confused and inaccurate.


Who are you to say these are 'lies"?
Why would I not just wait until I heard what He ACTUALLY had to say, and share that, rather than make up something?
Are you implying that is what I did?
I wanted nothing to do with what you did. That is why I did not quote it or even address it.
Ad hominem. Your [typical] Christian use of accusation against my person, really sucks Tammy.
William wrote:Perhaps the accuser is the one who wants you wasting your time on frivolous missions such as fighting for the title of "Christian"?
If it is such a frivolous matter, why does it matter so much to you? You are the one making the suggestions as to what I should or should not call myself.
I am in training. In the Next Phase. I will be doing more of the same, and will be based at the Hub of The Hologram Universes. I will have The Gem, which is able to transport me instantly to anywhere in The Hologram Universes [The Fathers Kingdom as The Lord spoke of it] and there will be instances where I will encounter folk who have created their Universe "just so" for themselves and offer them data which may help them move out from that and into higher knowledge.
Regardless of what you believe, it is still you making an issue out of something you call a frivolous mission. So perhaps you should have been applying your question to yourself.
My point remains. The Accuser may well be the reason you call yourself a Christian, so that you may - in turn - accuse others. It is frivolous in relation to what Christs mission is.
But truth cannot be a matter of what people believe and experience.
William wrote:Correct. This applies to Johns experiences as well.
For the simple fact that people can and do believe things that are false. That would render truth to be something false, would it not? That makes no sense. True is the opposite of false.
These are simply positions individual folk have the right to believe in as truth. There will always be at least partial truth involved but these cannot be said to not have falseness within them.
William, do you agree or disagree with the following:

But truth cannot be a matter of what people believe and experience. For the simple fact that people can and do believe things that are false. That would render truth to be something false, would it not? That makes no sense. True is the opposite of false.

I'm asking point blank because you're dancing around it.


I am not. What individuals experience is all they have to go by. To attempt to seed doubt into their minds that what they experience is 'false' simply by comparing their beliefs with your own and declaring they are untrue, [whereas you are 'true'], is what I am getting at Tammy.
None of us have to believe in what others believe. There is no good reason to make accusations that a person who has different beliefs than you are therefore "not of Christ" "liars" or "of the devil"
The key is to be lead into ALL Truth - so one is not under the false impression one is already in every way, there already. That certainly has not been established.
The One who leads people into all truth is Christ Himself. No one else. I cannot do it. You cannot do it. Religion cannot do it. Just Christ (who is Himself, the Truth).
Then perhaps you might want to seriously stop accusing others of not being true, because that is not one's rightful role.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: Making False Images of The Creator

Post #38

Post by tam »

Peace again to you and to the reader,
William wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 4:19 pm [Replying to tam in post #35]

Sure, but if you have a puzzle with misplaced pieces, the image made with those misplaces pieces is going to be different than the image made with rightly placed pieces. Yes?
As I already suggested, such misplaced pieces would be obvious as the image would show.
Not if you didn't know the image to begin with. Like I said, Christ is the One who knows where each of those puzzle pieces rightly go, so Christ (not ourselves, not our own ideas, not others' ideas) is the One to listen to if indeed you wish to know and be led into all truth.
That may be the case,


Then there really should be no issue on this point, William. What you added afterward just seems like a personal grievance and has no bearing on the actual point.

but then when one is accused by you of not knowing the Christ like you know the Christ...
Can you provide the quote from me on this please? Perhaps it is more your own realization than an accusation from me, though. Not that one has to remain in error. Instead of accusing me of pointing out an error (and/or pointing out what Christ actually said or did on any particular matter), you (or anyone) could just correct the error, turn to Christ, perhaps even tearing down everything you think you know, in order to let Him rebuild your 'house' (your faith), on Him, the Truth, the sure foundation.

one - naturally enough - wonders about the accuser and whether the accuser is really connected to the Christ or to something other than the Christ.
You know what would be better than wondering? Pointing out what I have said that is in contradiction with Christ (the Truth)? Test all things against Christ, His words, His deeds. That is what I do. Despite the things you accuse me of doing, that is all I have really done. Hold all things up against the Light (the Light who is Christ).
This leads to being reminded [from the bible];

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

and the rest of the story which goes with that.

I think - even as far as your claim goes, that you overstep by taking on the role of The Accuser in relation to your accusations against me and others, while doing so in the name of Christ. It seeds confusion.
How is it taking on the role of "the Accuser" by stating the fact that there are true Christians and false Christians?


As for testing others and their claims - Christ told us to watch out for false prophets and false christs (and therefore false christians), as well as false apostles, and that we can test them.

For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders that would deceive even the elect, if that were possible. Matt 24:24

See to it that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in My name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. Matt 24:5

I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. Rev 2:2

So there is nothing wrong with testing and using discernment for such things, and remaining in Christ. How else could we make sure no one deceives us? Found those who claim to be apostles to be false? Ensure that we are not misled by false prophets, false christs, false teachers, etc?

Judging for being false would be more about casting judgment (like a sentence, or a punishment, or telling someone what they 'deserve'). I would not and have not done that.
William wrote:I did not suggest anyone do that. What I suggested was for you to stop calling yourself a Christian.
So what is the difference? If you are not making an issue out of using the word Christ (even though it may require an explanation that Christ is not Christianity), then why make an issue out of using the word Christian (even though it may require an explanation that Christian is not Christianity)? Why the double standard?
It is not an issue which I made Tammy. If you go back and read the context of our conversation with an honest eye, you will see that I am engaging with the observation that it only confuses folk when they see Christians claiming other Christians are not 'true Christians'.
This does not follow, William. Why would someone who is Christian need to stop calling themselves Christian just because there are false Christians out there? There are false Christs also, but that does not mean that Christ should not be called Christ. Since you don't have a problem with the latter, there must be some other reason for your objection to the former.


My 'objection' remains that your claim that Christ spoke to you and asked you if you were ashamed of him and that 'ever since then', you have called yourself a Christian, because you assumed that was what the question was about.
I did not assume. I understood.

I don't really have anything more to say on that experience than what I shared. I'm not sure why you care so much about it, except that it is not in line with what you believe.

That being said, you have avoided the questions asked:

Why do you have a problem with the former, but not the latter? There are also false disciples, but that does not mean that a person must stop calling themselves a disciple because of them. There are false christs, but that does not mean that Christ should not be called the Christ, just because there are false christs. There are false anointed, but that does not mean that an anointed person should deny being anointed. There are false apostles (see example above), but that does not mean that there are not true apostles. There are false prophets, but that does not mean there are not true prophets or that a prophet should no longer be called a prophet, just because there are false ones. There are false gods, but that does not mean that there is not a true God.


Your objection is inconsistent. Nor does it make sense that a person should deny something they are (something Christ made them), just because there are some who are false.
My concern is that you did not delve any further as to what Christ was wanting you to know and just assumed. The result has been that you are groomed in the role of an accuser of other folk who call themselves "Christians" because you claim they are not 'true' Christians like you claim that you are.
A - again, I did not assume. I understood.

B - please also provide the quotes where I have accused other folk who call themselves Christians, not true Christians. Because that is against the rules here, so I'm pretty sure I never did it. Stating that there are true and false christians, though, that is just a fact.

My suggestion [to anyone claiming to be a "true Christian" is that they resolve the confusion by understanding that that ship has sailed and calling oneself a "Christian" is meaningless to those who hear it, because of the confusion Christianity has injected into the world.
For The Creator of This Universe, is not the author of confusion
The confusion is not coming from God.
Then Christians who are causing the confusion are also not coming from The Creator.
Is that what you think regarding the words "Christ", "Anointed", "Apostle", "Prophet", "Disciple"?

How could the confusion be coming from Christians (or anointed ones, or apostles, or prophets, or disciples), instead of from those who are false, and therefore, from whomever/whatever is teaching/leading them false?

Would it not be those who are false (and those who teach false) who are causing the confusion?



1 - Your response would not have applied to me, William. There would have been no point in questioning me to get me to realize something I already believed. My Lord taught me something I did not understand, something I had not realized. My Lord taught me the truth. My shock and remorse was my own, because I would never want - even inadvertently - to imply shame for Him.


So you tell yourself Tammy. And as a result of your conversion to Christianity, [because that is what a Christian is]
Incorrect. Nor have I ever converted to Christianity (the religion). Close, once. But no cigar. My Lord is the One who kept me OUT of them.

A Christian is simply a disciple of Christ who is anointed with holy spirit.
I see that your version of The Lord appeals to you...but you do require judging others as untrue in comparison to your self and your relationship with this 'real' person you believe is The Lord, in order for your particular Lord to be acceptable in your sight.
None of this is accurate William.

You don't accept these things, perhaps because you think your reasoning is wise/best (as I once thought my reasoning was best), and because you believe you are right (as I once thought about myself).
I do not accept your claim is true Tammy, because there is no supporting evidence that you are having a relationship with the Christ. That is good reasoning on my part and I am wise not to take your word for it.
So why the double standard?

You call yourself wise not to accept what I have said, and call it good reasoning. But if I test all things against Christ (the Truth, the Light) and find reason to reject those things because they are in contradiction to Him, His words, His teachings, His deeds... somehow I am judging and accusing?

I would never do something like that: make up a response from my Lord, put words in His mouth - including words of praise for myself - and then tell others this is what He would have said. Just the thought of something like that makes me uncomfortable.
On the contrary - why is it that you can claim the Christ speaks to you without providing the slightest piece of evidence to support this claim, and expect others to think you are not 'putting words into this voices mouth'?
There is no 'on the contrary'.

I did not make up a response from my Lord, and then tell others this is what He would have said. That is what you did (with the one you call 'the lord').

I didn't judge you for it, I just wanted nothing to do with it.
Just because you refrain from accepting credit where credit is due from Christ, does not mean that you are somehow worthy.


Whoa... where have I ever said that I am worthy? I am not worthy. The faith I have been given is a GIFT from God and His Son, who are themselves merciful, loving, forgiving, faithful. All glory goes to God and to His beloved Son. My Lord is the One who is worthy.
Surely covering your ears to such, is equal to putting words in Christs mouth Tammy.


Considering I never said what you claimed, no.
Either way it is a form of controlling what it is and what it isn't that you will accept from Christ...and exactly why you have given yourself permission to judge others as you do.
None of that is true.
Obviously your particular relationship with Christ is "master/slave" and "Shepherd/sheep" but you would do well to remember that not everyone has the same relationship - every relationship will be different, so bear that in mind when you next feel the urge to judge others in the name of Christ.
I am quite aware that not everyone has the same relationship, and I have not judged anyone, much less judged someone in the name of Christ.

I'm not the one comparing my relationship with Christ to someone else's relationship, William.

What if that is not what He would have said?
Why the past tense? What do you use to gauge 'what Christ 'would have said'? Is your relationship not in the moment, here and now?
The past tense was in direct response to you and your use of 'would have said'. You are the one who said what the one you call 'the lord' would have said. I was responding to you.
Then I'm just adding to all the other lies out there about Christ, about God - and making that picture more and more confused and inaccurate.


Who are you to say these are 'lies"?
William, if I made something up as coming from my Lord, and it was wrong, and it was not something He would have said, then it would be a lie, added to the many other lies (falsehoods) out there in the world.

Are you denying that there are lies out there about Christ and God? Because there are statements that 100% contradict one another; they cannot both be true. And there are claims out there that contradict Christ. Those claims that contradict Christ also cannot be true.

If Christ said to bless those who curse you, and someone else says that God wants you to curse those who curse you, that other person is speaking falsely, putting a lie out there about God.
Why would I not just wait until I heard what He ACTUALLY had to say, and share that, rather than make up something?
Are you implying that is what I did?
That is what you did when you said what the one you are calling 'the lord' would have said to you. Not what that one did say to you. But what that one would have said to you.


I wanted nothing to do with what you did. That is why I did not quote it or even address it.
Ad hominem. Your [typical] Christian use of accusation against my person, really sucks Tammy.
I did not attack your person at all, William. I wanted nothing to do with what you DID. If I was attacking your person, I would have said I wanted nothing to do with you.

The key is to be lead into ALL Truth - so one is not under the false impression one is already in every way, there already. That certainly has not been established.
The One who leads people into all truth is Christ Himself. No one else. I cannot do it. You cannot do it. Religion cannot do it. Just Christ (who is Himself, the Truth).
Then perhaps you might want to seriously stop accusing others of not being true, because that is not one's rightful role.
A - we are permitted to (even should) test and hold all things up against the Truth (Christ). To remain in Him. To keep from being deceived.

B - please provide the quote where I accused someone else of not being true so that I can examine the context (if there is such a statement).

C - As to one's 'rightful role', see examples at the start of this post, in particular Rev 2:2.




Peace still to you and to the reader.

Post Reply