Who would the antichrist fool?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Who would the antichrist fool?

Post #1

Post by Athetotheist »

"....and all the world wondered after the beast." (Rev. 13:3)

The antichrist is supposed to fool everyone----except true Christians----into worshipping him.

How well would that work out? Would he be able to fool.....

Jews? Judaism holds that only God is to be worshipped and that God does not take any physical form. Worship of any human being is considered blasphemous idolatry, and any wonders the antichrist performed would be interpreted as the workings of a false teacher sent by God to test the Jewish people.

Muslims? Islam also teaches that God takes no physical form, so they too would instantly peg the antichrist as a phony.

Feminist Pagans would reject any god-claim which didn't acknowledge the Goddess.

Atheists would suspect any miracle of being either a trick or a coincidence. An "image of the beast" brought to life could be taken for an artificial intelligence project.

The god-claim of the antichrist being fundamentally incompatible with so many beliefs, who would be left for the antichrist to fool?

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: Who would the antichrist fool?

Post #131

Post by Athetotheist »

:?: [Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #130

At the time of the writing of Rev 13, during the 6th head of the beast (Rev 17) Julius Caesar was the 5th head of the beast (Rev 17), who "was" and is dead, and only ruled as a "healed" god through his successors.
Ruling through successors? What kind of astounding miracle is that?
The "anti-Christ" of 1 John 2:13 is one who was and is coming, and that many antichrists have arisen and that they went out from us, which is to say, they went out from the original followers of Christ to become antichrist, in that they followed the false prophet Paul
What do you take as an authoritative source? Not the Christian Bible, or you would accept the writing of Paul.

2ndpillar2
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:47 am
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Who would the antichrist fool?

Post #132

Post by 2ndpillar2 »

Athetotheist wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 6:34 pm :?: [Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #130

At the time of the writing of Rev 13, during the 6th head of the beast (Rev 17) Julius Caesar was the 5th head of the beast (Rev 17), who "was" and is dead, and only ruled as a "healed" god through his successors.
Ruling through successors? What kind of astounding miracle is that?
The "anti-Christ" of 1 John 2:13 is one who was and is coming, and that many antichrists have arisen and that they went out from us, which is to say, they went out from the original followers of Christ to become antichrist, in that they followed the false prophet Paul
What do you take as an authoritative source? Not the Christian Bible, or you would accept the writing of Paul.
There is only one NT source for the term "antichrist", and that is from John, not Paul, and the "antichrist", at the time, "went out from us" 1 John 2:18 quote is:

18 Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out so that it might be shown that not all are of our sort.

As for "successors", the 8th head "was" and "is not" and is "an eighth" (Rev 17), is having the 5th follow the 7th, which is not a proper succession.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: Who would the antichrist fool?

Post #133

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #132
There is only one NT source for the term "antichrist", and that is from John, not Paul
But the Christian scriptures are supposed to be a box set. If Paul is wrong, why couldn't John be wrong as well?

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

Re: Who would the antichrist fool?

Post #134

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
Clownboat wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 12:10 pm
tam wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 10:48 pm Except that you continue to say 'voices' and 'them'; when I have said Him and HIS voice.
I don't understand the difference if a person is hearing a voice or voices. Is it normal to hear a voice, but crazy to hear many? Either way, I'm confident I did not offend any voice.
You tell me. You are the one who continues to change Him and voice - to - them and voices.
Christ spoke to people in the flesh and many still rejected Him (and His words).
Why do you think so many people were unimpressed with Christ in the flesh? If he failed to convince, that would be on him of course, but you attempt to pass the blame. You blaming those that were not convinced is unfair to them.
How can you claim it is unfair if you do not know the reasons they did not accept Him?

The only accounts we have from that time reveal - to name just a few reasons - that they did witness miracles (but blamed them on demons); that some refused to accept Him because He threatened their authority and called them out, pointing out their hypocrisy; that some did not accept Him because they did not want to hear/know the truth; that some had different expectations of the Messiah.

How is any of that His fault?

But as an adult, my Lord is the very One who taught me to test the content of what was being shared.

Got it. So you hear a voice you call Christ's, have knowledge that comes from a god, have spirits that interact with you and the god of the universe just so happened to have taught you how to test the content of what it was sharing? Any claims of yours that I got wrong or am missing?
I listen to the voice of my Lord (as do all of His sheep), yes. He teaches His sheep/disciples (as Teachers tend to do). Your "have spirits that interact with you" appears to be loosely based on my statement that the spirit in me bore witness to the truth of something someone shared (that spirit would not be a person but rather the breath/blood/seed of God... the same holy spirit that Christ breathed upon His apostles; that same anointing that is being referred to at 1John 2:27). He (Christ) also taught me to test the inspired expression. You seem to be finding fault in that (I could be misreading your 'tone'), but is that not something a good Teacher would do: teach their student to test what they hear, rather than just accept any and every claim?
To focus upon and test the content (the message). If the content/message was false, then it could not have come from Him - regardless of what was being claimed.

Let's be honest, you are just explaining the mechanism that got us to all the 10's of thousands of Christian denominations that we have today. Not the hearing of a voice mind you, just the interpreting of the Biblical message.
We have 10's of thousands of denominations because many (if not most) people are NOT listening to Christ.

Peace again to you.
And peace to you!
Thank you!


Peace again to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Who would the antichrist fool?

Post #135

Post by Clownboat »

tam wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:05 am You tell me. You are the one who continues to change Him and voice - to - them and voices.
Copy/paste: "I don't understand the difference if a person is hearing a voice or voices. Is it normal to hear a voice, but crazy to hear many? Either way, I'm confident I did not offend any voice."

I am not understanding what difference it makes if a person hears one voice or many and I have asked you if it is normal to hear a voice, but crazy to hear many? I do find your objection to the idea that you hear more than one voice to be very fascinating though. It's almost as if the idea that hearing one voice is normal and only when a person hears more than one should they be alarmed.
How can you claim it is unfair if you do not know the reasons they did not accept Him?
Obviously, they were not convinced. If a universe creating god wanted to convince you that it was a god, it would not fail.
If I saw man heal a blind person on behalf of a god, that would be convincing. However, what I knew the guy wasn't actually blind in the first place? Would I be convinced?
The only accounts we have from that time reveal - to name just a few reasons - that they did witness miracles (but blamed them on demons); that some refused to accept Him because He threatened their authority and called them out, pointing out their hypocrisy; that some did not accept Him because they did not want to hear/know the truth; that some had different expectations of the Messiah.
You're are just inventing excuses for why the god concept failed to convince.
Just examine your own words: "some did not accept Him because they did not want to hear/know the truth"
Surely you must see how ridiculous saying such a thing is? Ahhhhh!!!! The truth!!!!! Run!!!!! I personally seek to believe in as many true things as I can and welcome things that are shown to be true.
How is any of that His fault?
He failed to convince. Who else could be blamed for this failure?
I listen to the voice of my.... <Snipped more stuff about the voice you hear>
You seem to be finding fault in that (I could be misreading your 'tone'), but is that not something a good Teacher would do: teach their student to test what they hear, rather than just accept any and every claim?
Critical thinking should be learned before we are sent off to be taught. There are dastardly human on this planet after all, even teachers. So teach critical thinking, not believing teachers.
Step 1: Teacher makes claim.
Step 2: Apply critical thinking.

Compared to...
Step 1: Teacher makes claim.
Step 2: Teacher makes another claim about how to verify the first claim. Teacher supplies a subjective mechanism like, 'does it represent love'. If yes, accept. If no, reject. This mechanism will have varying results from person to person and is therefore not a valid mechanism. It would be critical thinking that would have us arrive at the realization that a subjective mechanism cannot be trusted, like the one supplied by the teacher in the example.
We have 10's of thousands of denominations because many (if not most) people are NOT listening to Christ.

You suggest listening to a voice that you hear. How am I to listen to the voice that you hear?
Having a subjective mechanism like, 'does it represent love' is actually a valid mechanism for all the denominations we have, not a lack of hearing a voice or voices for that matter.
a slave of Christ,
tammy
slave
noun
1.
a person who is forced to work for and obey another and is considered to be their property; an enslaved person.

I acknowledge the voice you claim to hear, the spirit(s) that guide you or whatever they do, that you claim your knowledge is not your own, but that of a God and that you are a slave to this (the voice, the spirits... all of it). I do not dispute these claims of yours and that you really feel these things are interacting with you.

This is all very odd to me though, as I have never heard voices nor been in a position of being forced into obedience. It's all very fascinating to me.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

2ndpillar2
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:47 am
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Who would the antichrist fool?

Post #136

Post by 2ndpillar2 »

Athetotheist wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 6:02 pm [Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #132
There is only one NT source for the term "antichrist", and that is from John, not Paul
But the Christian scriptures are supposed to be a box set. If Paul is wrong, why couldn't John be wrong as well?
It is a "box set" (NT canon) according to a daughter of Babylon (Rev 17:5), which is the Roman Catholic Church. As for John, sure, as shown in historical perspective, as in John 8:7, words can be added and subtracted (Rev 18:19) from original text. But in the words of Yeshua, per Matthew, the message of the "devil", the "tare seed", will be planted along the message of the son of man, in the same field/book, and Yeshua's servants were told to leave the "tares", such as Paul's followers, undisturbed, until the "end of the age", at which time, they would be the "first" to be "gathered" and thrown into the "furnace of fire" (Mt 13:30). The historical record pretty well confirms the fact that the "Christian" church took Paul into their bosom and protects him to this day. Their life of lawlessness depends on it. Well, here we are, at the "end of the age", and as you could expect, the veil is coming off the corruption of Paul and his followers, who think they can nail the law judging between right and wrong (good & evil) (Genesis 3:3-4) to a pagan cross, and gain entrance to a heaven guarded by the "worthless shepherd" (Zech 11:17)(Isaiah 22:15-25) Peter. On the other hand, both Peter and Paul are buried in the ground, presumably near Rome, as well as all of their immediate followers. If you look at the quotes preceding the use of the term "antichrist", the term is substituted with the term wicked, which would be similar to lawless/sinners. Paul is quoted as being the "foremost" sinner, and his followers assume the mantle of "sinners", and being among those who are both "righteous" & "saved", not even knowing what saved, per the "Word", means, apart from the message coming from their false prophet Paul, which is soothing to their ears, but whose final taste will be bitter (Rev 14:10).

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

Re: Who would the antichrist fool?

Post #137

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
Clownboat wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 12:45 pm
tam wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 1:05 am You tell me. You are the one who continues to change Him and voice - to - them and voices.
Copy/paste: "I don't understand the difference if a person is hearing a voice or voices. Is it normal to hear a voice, but crazy to hear many? Either way, I'm confident I did not offend any voice."

I am not understanding what difference it makes if a person hears one voice or many and I have asked you if it is normal to hear a voice, but crazy to hear many?


No.

And the difference is accuracy. The difference is what I said versus what you keep changing it to. So why do you do that? Does changing it to 'them' and 'voices' make it easier for you to dismiss or to believe I have a mental illness? If not, then why not simply go with what I said in the first place?
How can you claim it is unfair if you do not know the reasons they did not accept Him?
Obviously, they were not convinced. If a universe creating god wanted to convince you that it was a god, it would not fail.
If I saw man heal a blind person on behalf of a god, that would be convincing. However, what I knew the guy wasn't actually blind in the first place? Would I be convinced?
And if the man had clearly been blind since birth and still you did not accept this?
The only accounts we have from that time reveal - to name just a few reasons - that they did witness miracles (but blamed them on demons); that some refused to accept Him because He threatened their authority and called them out, pointing out their hypocrisy; that some did not accept Him because they did not want to hear/know the truth; that some had different expectations of the Messiah.
You're are just inventing excuses for why the god concept failed to convince.
I'm actually sticking to the accounts as described. You are making things up to blame me for blaming them, lol.
Just examine your own words: "some did not accept Him because they did not want to hear/know the truth"
Surely you must see how ridiculous saying such a thing is?


It is not ridiculous at all. It happens every day, even on this very forum. I'm not speaking about non-believers per se: a non-beleiver is a non-believer, it does not always mean much to a non-believer what is written in a book or what others testify to (even if corroborated by that book or reason). But those who profess to believers? Show (many of) them something that contradicts what their religion teaches and what they believe- something right there in black and white before their very eyes- and then you can get the figurative version of: "Ahhhhh!!!! The truth!!!!! Run!!!!!"

Or "deny" instead of "run". And of course no one will call it the truth - because who claims to not want the truth, or even realizes that this is what their actions amount to?

That 'deny' or 'run' is often based upon fear though - fear that religion uses to keep people in line.
I personally seek to believe in as many true things as I can and welcome things that are shown to be true.
Most people say (even believe) that. Sometimes it is true. But it is also true that people deny (or look away from) things that are true, but that they do not want to believe. Abuse, adultery, knowing someone you love is lying to you (but really hoping or wishing they are not).

Or how about denying the truth that shows you in a bad light, that you would have to be ashamed over? People do not like being in pain (some exceptions), or feeling ashamed, and some people think so highly of themselves, that they would automatically deny any truth that shows otherwise.

It is called denial. It happens every day.

So no... it is not at all far-fetched.
How is any of that His fault?
He failed to convince. Who else could be blamed for this failure?
Asked and answered.
I listen to the voice of my.... <Snipped more stuff about the voice you hear>
You seem to be finding fault in that (I could be misreading your 'tone'), but is that not something a good Teacher would do: teach their student to test what they hear, rather than just accept any and every claim?
Critical thinking should be learned before we are sent off to be taught. There are dastardly human on this planet after all, even teachers. So teach critical thinking, not believing teachers.
Step 1: Teacher makes claim.
Step 2: Apply critical thinking.
That is EXACTLY what my Lord taught me to do when I was a child, being taught by men in religion.
Compared to...
Step 1: Teacher makes claim.
Step 2: Teacher makes another claim about how to verify the first claim. Teacher supplies a subjective mechanism like, 'does it represent love'. If yes, accept. If no, reject. This mechanism will have varying results from person to person and is therefore not a valid mechanism. It would be critical thinking that would have us arrive at the realization that a subjective mechanism cannot be trusted, like the one supplied by the teacher in the example.
A - if the Teacher is Christ, then He has already proven that His words are true (He said that He would continue to teach, He said that He would rise up and LIVE, He said that He would not leave us - His children - as orphans. He cannot teach or speak to anyone unless those things were true).

B - Others make many claims about Him (there are even lying spirits out there, as well as our own interpretations and ideas). If those claims contradict Him, His word, then those claims cannot be true.

C - Something that is not from love is not from God (and therefore not from His Son). I don't care who you are - believer or non-believer or anything in between - how can you find fault with that? Can people make mistakes with that - yes of course (and hard-heartedness is one fo the reasons that one law from God from the very beginning (love) had to be spelled out for people in rules, regulations, written laws. Some of which were made as an allowance for the people, but were not true from the beginning, and some of which were mishandled by the lying pen of the scribes). But if you are acting from love - truly - and you make a mistake, then 'love covers over a multitude of sins'.** And of course you can also combine this (love) with holding all things up against the Light (Christ, the Truth).

I see and hear the love and the wisdom in the above.

Plus it just makes sense: God IS love, so what comes from Him will also be from love. And Christ IS truth - if something contradicts Him, then it cannot be true.


Look at the example that I gave above, where my Lord asked me about my actions, if they were from love as He has taught me? Look again at the result that came from that. Where is the fault? Where is the problem? For you (and some others), the fault is just that I give credit to my Lord, my Teacher. But I will continue to do so, because it is true - whether others accept or refrain.

**{And you should think critically here as well. A man wanting to have an affair or leave his wife for a new woman he is in love with might claim this is from love. But where is the love for his wife in this? The promises that he made his wife that he now betraying? He is not actually acting out of love (though he may convince himself that he is, because of what he personally WANTS).}
We have 10's of thousands of denominations because many (if not most) people are NOT listening to Christ.

You suggest listening to a voice that you hear. How am I to listen to the voice that you hear?
If you want to hear Christ (and not just to hear, but to LISTEN and serve) - then ask for ears to hear, and keep asking, keep knocking, and the door will be opened.
a slave of Christ,
tammy
slave
noun
1.
a person who is forced to work for and obey another and is considered to be their property; an enslaved person.

I acknowledge the voice you claim to hear, the spirit(s) that guide you or whatever they do, that you claim your knowledge is not your own, but that of a God and that you are a slave to this (the voice, the spirits... all of it). I do not dispute these claims of yours and that you really feel these things are interacting with you.

This is all very odd to me though, as I have never heard voices nor been in a position of being forced into obedience. It's all very fascinating to me.
Well I hope I have been able to at least answer some of your questions about Christ speaking.

To the rest: I truly do not know how you can have been a Christian (no gaslighting involved here) but continue to speak of being forced into obedience. No one is forced into obedience by Christ. You must know that. You can see that from the example earlier, where my Lord asked me if my actions were from love. I was not forced into acting from love. I was only reminded of what love would and would not DO.

And do you not recall that Christ also came to serve, making Himself a least one, taking the form of a slave, giving even His own will over to His Father? His Father did not make Him do that. Christ did not have to die for us. He had the choice, but gave His will to His Father ("IF POSSIBLE, take this cup from me... if not, YOUR will be done"). Did you not know that the apostles and disciples also referred to themselves (and made themselves) slaves of Christ?

Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ [Jesus], to all the holy ones in union with Christ Jesus who are in Phi·lipʹpi, Philippians 1:1

James, a slave of God and of the Lord [Jesus] Christ, to the 12 tribes that are scattered about: James 1:1

Simon Peter, a slave and an apostle of [Jesus] Christ, 2Peter 1:1

Jude, a slave of [Jesus] Christ, but a brother of James,a to the called onesb who are loved by God the Father and preserved for Jesus Christ: Jude 1:1


That even the angel speaking to John (in revelation) described himself as a fellow slave with John and John's brothers? (Rev 22:9)

Christ purchased us - yes - with His own blood; so that we are subject to LIFE instead of to DEATH (as Adam sold everyone TO). But Christ does not ENSLAVE anyone. We are free to choose to serve out of love, just as He did/does with His Father. God is a god of service and of love, and we - who belong to Christ, who are His disciples/brothers - are in TRAINING. Christ taught us to serve one another, to make ourselves least ones - just as He did the same before us.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Who would the antichrist fool?

Post #138

Post by brunumb »

tam wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 2:48 pm
Just examine your own words: "some did not accept Him because they did not want to hear/know the truth"
Surely you must see how ridiculous saying such a thing is?


It is not ridiculous at all. It happens every day, even on this very forum. I'm not speaking about non-believers per se: a non-beleiver is a non-believer, it does not always mean much to a non-believer what is written in a book or what others testify to (even if corroborated by that book or reason). But those who profess to believers? Show (many of) them something that contradicts what their religion teaches and what they believe- something right there in black and white before their very eyes- and then you can get the figurative version of: "Ahhhhh!!!! The truth!!!!! Run!!!!!"

Or "deny" instead of "run". And of course no one will call it the truth - because who claims to not want the truth, or even realizes that this is what their actions amount to?

That 'deny' or 'run' is often based upon fear though - fear that religion uses to keep people in line.
Your rebuttal is very weak. If someone is convinced they have been presented with the truth then that is the sort of thing that actually leads to conversion. That said, you are in no position to say why people did not accept the claims of Jesus back in the day. It is actually a lot easier to understand why they wouldn't in terms of him being just another itinerant preacher performing lame tricks like so many other tricksters.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Who would the antichrist fool?

Post #139

Post by Clownboat »

Clownboat wrote: I am not understanding what difference it makes if a person hears one voice or many and I have asked you if it is normal to hear a voice, but crazy to hear many?

No.
Then why were you so upset when I used the plural voices initially instead of voice? (Which I have since corrected, yet you are still stuck on it).
And the difference is accuracy. The difference is what I said versus what you keep changing it to. So why do you do that?
See! It does seem that hearing voices is upseting when compared to just hearing a voice. Why the distinction?
Does changing it to 'them' and 'voices' make it easier for you to dismiss or to believe I have a mental illness?
Nope.
If not, then why not simply go with what I said in the first place?
Because I initially made a mistake about the amount of voices you claim to hear. It gets hard when you also bring in spirits. I think you should give me a bit more leeway, especially because I have since corrected it to be just voice.
And if the man had clearly been blind since birth and still you did not accept this?

Your statement is nonsensical. You start with 'if', but end in the assertive with a question mark.
I'm actually sticking to the accounts as described. You are making things up to blame me for blaming them, lol.
Lol indeed! Readers, did Tam blame the victims?
"they did witness miracles (but blamed them on demons)"
"some refused to accept Him because He threatened their authority and called them out"
"pointing out their hypocrisy"
"some did not accept Him because they did not want to hear/know the truth"

Compare that to:
If the creator of our universe intended to make itself known to someone, but failed to convince them that it was real. Said creator would at fault for not being convincing.
It is not ridiculous at all.

It is in fact ridiculous to reject a creator that is trying to make itself known to you because you don't want to know the truth.
This is nothing more than a provided religious excuse for why so many didn't find your Christ to be a credible Messiah. It's not even a good one. Fear of truth? Come on now!
It happens every day, even on this very forum.

Only in your head. It would be ridiculous to reject a real God, for any reason. Your reasons are just bad. Even an atheist would no longer be able to maintain their atheism if a God made itself known to them. Fear of the truth... lol.
That 'deny' or 'run' is often based upon fear though - fear that religion uses to keep people in line.

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your meaning.
Or how about denying the truth that shows you in a bad light,

There is no better way to improve oneself then to acknowledge a mistake and correct it. Again, a reason that I seek to believe as many true thing as I can. One should not fear but avoid being wrong!
I see and hear the love and the wisdom in the above.
I bolded the part where the subjectivness is entering into the mechanism therefore making it invalid.
Plus it just makes sense: God IS love, so what comes from Him will also be from love. And Christ IS truth - if something contradicts Him, then it cannot be true.
Again: I see and hear the love and the wisdom in the above.
What you see as love will not be shared by all. Some would find it loving to stone a homosexual, because that dead homosexual can therefore no longer seduce others to be homosexual. It is loving to save others from becoming homosexual.
Tam may agree. Or not, but either way, it is up to the individual to determine where and in what they see love.
Look at the example that I gave above, where my Lord asked me about my actions, if they were from love as He has taught me? Look again at the result that came from that. Where is the fault? Where is the problem?

Again x2: I see and hear the love and the wisdom in the above. I note that Tam cannot speak for everyone.
If you want to hear Christ (and not just to hear, but to LISTEN and serve) - then ask for ears to hear, and keep asking, keep knocking, and the door will be opened.
Tam, that is not how it worked for me. I have tested such more earnestly then you will ever believe or understand.
I'm just not like you as I have not been hearing a voice since childhood nor do I have spirits (plural or not I'm not sure) influencing me. The knowledge I have is not from a god like you. I am a mere man going with the best information available to me.
To the rest: I truly do not know how you can have been a Christian (no gaslighting involved here) but continue to speak of being forced into obedience.

Slaves are forced into obedience. Perhaps 'slave' is not the word you should be using as it would be an insult to people suffering from actual slavery.

49.6 million people live in modern slavery – in forced labour and forced marriage. <---- These are real slaves Tam and I doubt they would share in any slavery plight with you. Heck, you even embrase your slavery.

If someone steels my sandwich at work, I may feel violated, but that does not make me a rape victim. For me to then claim to be a rape victim, would be an insult to those who actually suffer from rape. Ask your Christ, would an actual slave find it loving to hear you claim to be a slave?

serv·ant
noun
a devoted and helpful follower or supporter.

I see no issue with people claiming to be servants and IMO this describes you.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

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

Re: Who would the antichrist fool?

Post #140

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
Clownboat wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 10:04 am
Clownboat wrote: I am not understanding what difference it makes if a person hears one voice or many and I have asked you if it is normal to hear a voice, but crazy to hear many?

No.
Then why were you so upset when I used the plural voices initially instead of voice? (Which I have since corrected, yet you are still stuck on it).
I was not 'so upset'. I simply corrected you. As for being stuck on it, I am simply answering the questions you keep asking me about it.
And the difference is accuracy. The difference is what I said versus what you keep changing it to. So why do you do that?
See! It does seem that hearing voices is upseting when compared to just hearing a voice. Why the distinction?
I answered that already: accuracy.
Does changing it to 'them' and 'voices' make it easier for you to dismiss or to believe I have a mental illness?
Nope.
If not, then why not simply go with what I said in the first place?
Because I initially made a mistake about the amount of voices you claim to hear. It gets hard when you also bring in spirits. I think you should give me a bit more leeway, especially because I have since corrected it to be just voice.
Then the matter appears to be concluded.
And if the man had clearly been blind since birth and still you did not accept this?

Your statement is nonsensical. You start with 'if', but end in the assertive with a question mark.
It is a direct follow-up to the statement you had just made:
If I saw man heal a blind person on behalf of a god, that would be convincing. However, what I knew the guy wasn't actually blind in the first place? Would I be convinced?
I'm actually sticking to the accounts as described. You are making things up to blame me for blaming them, lol.
Lol indeed! Readers, did Tam blame the victims?
Why are you so stuck on 'victims'? I am simply going with the account as described. You are ignoring the account as described.
Compare that to:
If the creator of our universe intended to make itself known to someone, but failed to convince them that it was real. Said creator would at fault for not being convincing.
You're casting blame there, yourself.
It is not ridiculous at all.

It is in fact ridiculous to reject a creator that is trying to make itself known to you because you don't want to know the truth.
I agree the action is ridiculous.

But that doesn't mean people don't do it. People reject (refuse even to listen to) what they do not want to hear all the time.
It happens every day, even on this very forum.

Only in your head.


I laid it out in my previous post pretty clearly. You can reject it; that is fine; but you have not countered it.
Or how about denying the truth that shows you in a bad light,

There is no better way to improve oneself then to acknowledge a mistake and correct it. Again, a reason that I seek to believe as many true thing as I can. One should not fear but avoid being wrong!
That may be... but are you suggesting that people do not do it?
I see and hear the love and the wisdom in the above.
I bolded the part where the subjectivness is entering into the mechanism therefore making it invalid.
Plus it just makes sense: God IS love, so what comes from Him will also be from love. And Christ IS truth - if something contradicts Him, then it cannot be true.
Again: I see and hear the love and the wisdom in the above.
What you see as love will not be shared by all. Some would find it loving to stone a homosexual, because that dead homosexual can therefore no longer seduce others to be homosexual. It is loving to save others from becoming homosexual.
Tam may agree. Or not, but either way, it is up to the individual to determine where and in what they see love.
Except of course if you are also looking to Christ, then you could not stone a homosexual (or anyone), even if you were just going by what is written. Because Christ taught - both word and deed - just the opposite. That is not subjective, except to someone who does not want to hear or see or know the truth of the matter. That person can find all manner of justifications to do what they want to do, regardless of the commands and example from Christ (the Truth).

The rest is based on ignorance (what makes a person homosexual) and fear, rather than on truth and love.
Look at the example that I gave above, where my Lord asked me about my actions, if they were from love as He has taught me? Look again at the result that came from that. Where is the fault? Where is the problem?

Again x2: I see and hear the love and the wisdom in the above. I note that Tam cannot speak for everyone.
Maybe that is why Tam asked those two questions there at the end of the quote.
If you want to hear Christ (and not just to hear, but to LISTEN and serve) - then ask for ears to hear, and keep asking, keep knocking, and the door will be opened.
Tam, that is not how it worked for me. I have tested such more earnestly then you will ever believe or understand.
I'm just not like you as I have not been hearing a voice since childhood nor do I have spirits (plural or not I'm not sure) influencing me. The knowledge I have is not from a god like you. I am a mere man going with the best information available to me.
Nothing is stopping you from continuing to seek or knock or ask. In the meantime, if you love Christ, remain in His word and obey His commands.


Peace again.
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

Post Reply