Special Rules... Why?

[POI]

I don't subscribe to the notion that people receive divine revelation to the extent that the discussion suggests anyway. God doesn't talk to people like he did Moses. He doesn't tell them to go forth and convert the heathens running amok on internet forums. If someone tells me "God told me" or they received something through "divine revelation" I'm pretty sure they are lying or delusional. Or perhaps even under demonic influence.

For debate: Why give the Bible special circumstances, special privileges, special pleading, or special rules? Why not just apply the exact same reasoning in bold, as quoted above? Meaning, no one is receiving any revelation; direct or indirect. It's all instead self-deception/other.

[William]

The answer to that question appears (to me) to be that we cannot substitute one unsupported concept for another unsupported concept.

I understand what you are saying, which is why we can also test them. Tam claims Jesus speaks to her and others today in post 15. I asked her for follow up, and she will now not respond. If someone claims an external agency speaks to them and others, and we have means to test, and they refuse, what does this say about their claim? Of course, it could still be true. Just like other religions, "mediums", "psychics", etc., could also be true in receiving external communication. But I find, when tested, with any amount of scrutiny, they seem to crumble. But yea, let's assume they are still possibly true.

Let's unpack that.

POI: I understand what you are saying, which is why we can also test them.

ME: Then we agree that this needs to happen. Do we agree on how to test them? We would of course be required to interact amicably re making some kind of list of agreement.

POI: Tam claims Jesus speaks to her and others today in post 15.

ME: I see that.

POI: I asked her for follow up, and she will now not respond.

ME: I understand your frustration here. I have not doubted Tam's sincerity re her belief that Christ speaks to her. I asked her once (some months back) for simply examples ad verbatim (like exampled in Post #19) that I might view the evidence and thus see for myself that she is claiming a truthful thing (or not).
Unfortunately Tam declined.
Now we could speculate until the cows (sacred at that) come home as to Tam's reasons for withholding such evidence (perhaps it is simply a case of "Pearls Before Swine" syndrome or shyness or instruction from Christ not to do so or a combination of those or et al) but we need not bother as to why Tam produces no evidence in support of her claim. WE only need to focus on that she chooses not to, so "that is that".
Yes, this choice in itself does not bode well for Tam's claim that she hears and listens to the voice of Christ, but that in itself is not to say others don't and I am certainly not shy about sharing my interactions with said voice, as I did in Post #19, and that evidence is available for critiquing, if anyone cared to do so.

POI: If someone claims an external agency speaks to them and others, and we have means to test, and they refuse, what does this say about their claim?

ME: Nothing in particular, although the implication is that the claim needn't be believed on its own merit. But that is just Tams claim here.
The claim that Christ and I speak together is not reliant upon Tam choosing to keep any evidence she has, to herself.
I cannot say that I have read Tam claim that Christ is an "external agency" re her hearing and obeying the voice of Christ.
I can acknowledge that the relationship tends to bring together the external and the internal elements of my overall human experience.

POI: Of course, it could still be true.

ME: Of course.

POI: Just like other religions, "mediums", "psychics", etc., could also be true in receiving external communication.

ME: And internal information (re aligning the two perceptions the human experience offers).

POI: But I find, when tested, with any amount of scrutiny, they seem to crumble.

ME: I am happy to continue offering verbatim interactions I have with Christ, and open to any critique you and others might find therein.

POI: But yea, let's assume they are still possibly true.

ME: Nah. Let's not assume. Let's investigate further.

____________
THE EVIDENCE (continued from Post#19)

Date: Tuesday, 28 November 2023
Start Time: 09:18

(ME= Medium Entity)

The Voice of Christ: The Ruru flies close over your head.


ME: Sure! Why not! Nothing better than imagining this is taking place at The Hub fireside! Very Appropriate!


The Voice of Christ: Why do we have the ability to imagine future scenarios?

ME: Does it matter "why?" We can and so we do.

The Voice of Christ: Never a dull moment
Overmorrow.

ME: Foresight has its advantages!

The Voice of Christ:
(Evidence We're Living In A SIMULATION - How Evolution Hid The TRUTH | Donald Hoffman)

ME: Yes. "Simulation Theory". That is what a "Created" thing is. Something that a conscious entity can experience as real.

The Voice of Christ: Behind The Veil. Lets not assume. Let's investigate further.

ME: Indeed.

The Voice of Christ:
INSIGHTS BEYOND SPACE TIME - What this new physics theory can teach us about the universe
The Voice of Christ: Reality Given the second-fiddle. Brilliant

ME: The videos content is explained as "Einstein's theory of relativity appears to break down at very small space (10 to the -33 m) and time (10-43 seconds). Donald Hoffman is a cognitive scientist and popular science author and argues that there is no such thing as space time in physics, and that all physical events are ultimately conscious. This video is a fascinating look at one of the leading minds in cognitive science , and his argument that physical events are ultimately conscious. Hoffman discusses the problems with the popular idea of space and time being fundamental aspects of the universe, and argues that these concepts are instead results of our own understanding (or lack there of) and experience."

The Voice of Christ: Consciousness Interacts

ME: With itself, and in doing so creates "things" to experience.

The Voice of Christ: No Doubt about It. For A Particular Reason (Embracing your life)
For Your Greater Enjoyment (Identity)
Items of Interest:
"The Law of Attraction"
Conscious Intelligence Without Wisdom Puzzles/Mysteries...

ME: Exactly! I am attracted to the idea of interacting with Christ, and thus the external aligns with the internal item (of interest) and adds to my overall sense of self identity. Thus "wisdom" which in turn allows for the puzzles and mysteries to dissolve. (The Fog Lifts.)

The Voice of Christ: Preparing for the Hunt

ME: The hunt is on for those who might want to connect with Christ.

The Voice of Christ: With that in mind and treating the Source-Story as largely a work of fiction, we can look at the fact of the story itself and agree re the different Personalities of the Characters within The Story.
Hunt for and find the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.

ME: That sounds like a reasonable approach to take, all things considered.

The Voice of Christ: Lets not assume. Let's investigate further.
On Sat Apr 09, 2022 5:18 pm You wrote:

There is no finer theistic story which exemplifies the state of difference between theist and non-theist mind-sets, better than the following.

Once upon a time...

Three people were nailed to three trees and left to die.

One of the three was someone who claimed that there was a mind behind creation and he knew this mind intimately.
The other was a fellow who had a non-theist mind-set and believed he was the product of the brain.
The third was a theist-potential - an 'undecided'.

The non-theist mockingly asked the theist "where is the evidence of your god now?'"

The theist did not even attempt to answer the non-theists question, while the theist-potential tried to answer the non-theist by pointing out that since the three of them were in the same predicament, mocking questions weren't going to achieve anything, and that it would be best - at least - to humble oneself by refraining from emotional critical outbursts and unreasonable demands.

The theist did not ignore the theist-potential and replied that his sensible understanding of the situation would ensure that his next experience would be a good one.

The theist potential probably became a theist at that moment...since his mind wasn't set in the same way the non-theist mind was set.

Then they all shut up and died...

...well maybe not...

One version of the story has it that the non-theist just went on and on making senseless proclamations, until finally the breath left his body, and that the theist who claimed to know GOD, simply ignored the non-theist, as if the non-theists protestations where non-sensible and thus unable to be answered sensibly.

The Voice of Christ: Oneness One should pay noted attention to the mark of YHVH on the worms end...

ME: Indeed. The mark of YHVH is found in many places. Even on one of the poles of Saturn.

The Voice of Christ: Where is the most extraordinary place you've ever been?

ME: I (the conscious personality growing through the human experience) have only the memory of the extraordinary placethe universealthough it could be argued also that The Hub is another such place re "imagination".

The Voice of Christ: In a non-deterministic world, one would expect true randomness to exist.

ME: Yes, I think so. But "how to create a deterministic universe which can be experienced (at certain levels such as "being human") as "non-deterministic"?" I think the answer is in the design of the human instrument which enables the "wearer-consciousness" to experience the universe in such a manner, while at the same time allowing for the individual personality to "come to an understanding" of its true deterministic nature.


The Voice of Christ: Peace To You.

ME: And to You, also.



End Time: 09:55

[POI]

ME: Then we agree that this needs to happen. Do we agree on how to test them? We would of course be required to interact amicably re making some kind of list of agreement.

Ask that Jesus tell both you and I the exact same thing. When Jesus tells me, I will tell you, and you then verify Jesus told you the exact same thing Jesus told me. Yea?

I have not doubted Tam's sincerity re her belief that Christ speaks to her.

Neither do I. Just like I do not doubt the millions of others who also claim to receive communication(s) from external agencies (Jesus and other). But there is a difference between sincerity verses "reality". Do you and I share the same reality?

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

I haven't watched the first video. Quite frankly, because it is the length of a movie. Care to share the point(s) of it? I'm not going to presume, based upon the title alone. The title could merely be click-bait. The second video is also rather long. What is the point of it as well?

[William]

ME: Then we agree that this needs to happen. Do we agree on how to test them? We would of course be required to interact amicably re making some kind of list of agreement.

Ask that Jesus tell both you and I the exact same thing. When Jesus tells me, I will tell you, and you then verify Jesus told you the exact same thing Jesus told me. Yea?

I do not think that could work as evidence because we could each fudge the results since there are no witnesses observing each of us re what acutually happens and what we each might claim happens. Yea?

I have not doubted Tam's sincerity re her belief that Christ speaks to her.

Neither do I. Just like I do not doubt the millions of others who also claim to receive communication(s) from external agencies (Jesus and other). But there is a difference between sincerity verses "reality".

And the idea re "testing" would be to find a way in which to show the difference.

Do you and I share the same reality?

We do. However, you and I might not share the same reaction to or interaction with said reality.

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

I haven't watched the first video. Quite frankly, because it is the length of a movie. Care to share the point(s) of it?

No. If you are not interested in that subject, that is your porogative.

I'm not going to presume, based upon the title alone. The title could merely be click-bait. The second video is also rather long. What is the point of it as well?

The videos are simple a part of the conversation Christ and I are involved with and Christ wanted me to focus on the subject of "Simulation Theory" re what Christ is (overall) saying in the conversation.
I have watched both videos (some time ago) and remember enough about them to get further "gist" of what Christ is saying to me and I to Christ (in the conversation I presented as evidence to be critiqued) and I know that these are not "click-bait" and anyone who finds the subject interesting and could choose to dedicate some of their time in viewing the videos, would also understand that this is the case.

The overall "point" being, I offered the evidence for critique. Do you have any to offer?

[POI]

I do not think that could work as evidence because we could each fudge the results since there are no witnesses observing each of us re what acutually happens and what we each might claim happens. Yea?

POI It may not work between you and I, in this forum arena. But it could be tested elsewhere quite easily. Have 5 Christians pray for Jesus to give them the exact same word or phrase. Have them right down the answer, and then share. Baring you were able to prove they did not collaborate prior, or any other type of deception, which is what we usually find, we could certainly test. But I guess there will always be excuses as to why such an easy and quick test will never work.

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

William We do. However, you and I might not share the same reaction to or interaction with said reality.

POI Reaction aside, I either acknowledge Jesus contacted me, or not. And as I recently told another, Jesus could contact me in a way for which I could no longer deny. Which means any reaction, to suggest the contrary, would be deliberate deception.

William No.

POI Then maybe the video was not very memorable and/or persuasive? You are unwilling to share the key point(s)? The reason I ask, is that you and I could watch a move, and want to discuss parts in which the other does not find important enough to discuss.

[William]

[POI It may not work between you and I, in this forum arena. But it could be tested elsewhere quite easily. Have 5 Christians pray for Jesus to give them the exact same word or phrase. Have them right down the answer, and then share. Baring you were able to prove they did not collaborate prior, or any other type of deception, which is what we usually find, we could certainly test. But I guess there will always be excuses as to why such an easy and quick test will never work. ]

Let's assume the test shows that it does not work.

What could we assertain from those results?

[POI]

[POI It may not work between you and I, in this forum arena. But it could be tested elsewhere quite easily. Have 5 Christians pray for Jesus to give them the exact same word or phrase. Have them right down the answer, and then share. Baring you were able to prove they did not collaborate prior, or any other type of deception, which is what we usually find, we could certainly test. But I guess there will always be excuses as to why such an easy and quick test will never work. ]

Let's assume the test shows that it does not work.

What could we assertain from those results?

Likely that a bunch of individuals are in self-deception.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #26]

Likely that a bunch of individuals are in self-deception.

Is that all we could surmise?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #26]

Likely that a bunch of individuals are in self-deception.

Is that all we could surmise?

If course not, but the other options carry with it more baggage.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #26]

Likely that a bunch of individuals are in self-deception.

Is that all we could surmise?

If course not, but the other options carry with it more baggage.

I thought we were talking about science.
Since when did the idea of extra baggage allow for a special rule re scientific investigation?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #26]

Likely that a bunch of individuals are in self-deception.

Is that all we could surmise?

If course not, but the other options carry with it more baggage.

I thought we were talking about science.
Since when did the idea of extra baggage allow for a special rule re scientific investigation?

????

If we circle back to the OP, Data assumes that anyone who claims communication from Jesus is either delusional or lying. I simply ask "why not also extend these assumption(s) to the claims from the Bible too?"

Along with Tam, it appears you believe Jesus communicates with you too, in some capacity. Am I right in this conclusion? If not, please correct me. But if I'm right, we have countless people who claim some external agencies communicate. They cannot ALL be right (unless you believe all sorts of external agencies exist as well), but they could most certainly all be wrong.

So to repeat, lets maybe start here:

-- Does Jesus communicate with anyone at all? Apparently so, which includes you, Tam, and many others.
-- Does Jesus communicate with many? Apparently so, according to Tam, and many others.
-- Are these believers earnest in their beliefs? Apparently so, according to all these fine folks in which I engage, which do not appear to be deliberate deceivers.
-- This means Jesus is SAID to communicate with MANY.

Okay, let's test.

'Dear Jesus, when you were on earth, what was your favorite food?'

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