Does Christ speak and how?

Getting to know more about a specific belief

Moderator: Moderators

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

Does Christ speak and how?

Post #1

Post by tam »

May you have peace!

A question that continues to be posed to me is with regard to my bearing witness to a living and speaking Christ. How does He speak? What does that mean? How can we test that?

I imagine that one reason the questions are continually posed to me is because I cannot provide the proof that some are asking me to provide. I can only provide evidence in the form of:

a) Personal testimony from having heard Christ
b) The written testimony of or about others who have heard Christ
c) What Christ Himself is written to have said on the matter


If none of the above are acceptable to someone, then I am not sure what more that person and I would have to talk about on this particular matter. We could hopefully discuss respectfully from a point of love, reason, logic. For those who are interested...


Christ said that His sheep would hear His voice.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." John 10:27

"I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.…" John 10:14-16



Written testimony about/from others who heard His voice, confirming the truth of what He said:

The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it." Acts 8:29

**
In Damascus, there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, "Ananias!"

"Yes Lord," he answered.

The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight."
(Acts 9:10,11... and it continues)

**
There is Peter's vision telling him that he should eat foods that he considered unclean, and then after his vision:

While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit (Christ) said to him, "Simon, three men are looking for you. So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them." (Acts 10: 9-20)

**
There are of course multiple examples from Paul. The entire book of Revelation is from Christ to John. There is a warning against hardening our hearts if we hear His voice.

As has just been said: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion." Hebrews 3:15

Then of course there are the examples of Abraham, who heard, Noah, who heard, the prophets, who heard, Joseph, who heard, Daniel, who heard, etc, etc. Their faith is based upon the evidence of what they heard.



My own personal testimony


I did not always know that Christ spoke, and I did not always recognize that voice within me as being His. But someone else bore witness to a living speaking Christ, and it bothered me, lol. I had just ended a two year bible study with a certain denomination, and I did not want to get misled by man ever gain. But here was this person claiming that Christ spoke. If I believed this person, that they were from God, then what was wrong with me that I allowed myself to get misled yet again. On the other hand, what was wrong with me if this person did hear Christ, and I rejected them?

But soon into my dilemma (and my asking how I might know, even though I thought I was just asking myself) I heard:

Test WHAT this person is saying. Test the message. Do not pay attention to the person. Test to see if what this person is saying is true, or not. Then you will know who this person is from.


I still did not know this was Christ speaking to me. I just thought, "Oh, of course... that is what I will do."

So that is what I did. Along the way, I saw all these verses and examples and testimony that Christ does indeed speak, that God spoke also, though now speaks through Christ. In dreams, in visions, in direct words, in reminders, in opening eyes and ears to a truth that one might read, see, or hear. Once I realized that Christ is supposed to speak, I asked for ears to hear as well. Even though I did hear Him; I just did not know I heard Him. I needed to learn His voice and recognize Him.

**

I was asked how does He speak

He speaks in words. He speaks in visions (I have never had a vision that I am aware of). He speaks in dreams. He can also bring to mind something learned, read, or experienced in the past to help me see the truth in something He is teaching me. He has opened my eyes to something that is written, if I am reading the bible. He can and has read to me something that He is written to have said, so that I hear it in His voice. That was enlightening.

Sometimes when I am responding to something that someone else has asked, He will give me the words to say, or reveal something to me (as in open my heart and ears to understanding something) that I had not previously understood.


The language that He speaks is truth. He has never spoken anything to me that was not true, and that was not from love. And everything He teaches me deepens my understanding of love: His love and the love of His Father.



(As for testing the inspired expression... anything that is in conflict with what Christ teaches cannot be true. Also Christ (truth) comes from love (God), so nothing that He says will be in conflict with love. Especially since the law that is written upon our hearts in the new covenant is the law of love.)


**

I do not expect anyone to take my word for these things. I do not take the word of others for what they claim came from Christ. I explained above what I did, what I heard from Christ TO do.

If I have shared anything that helps anyone, then great. If not, then no problem. I am not the one people should be listening to if they are following or desiring to follow Christ... I can only point TO that One: Christ Jaheshua, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit, the Chosen One of Jah. Christ, who is Himself, the faithful and true witness of His Father, Jah.



If one wants to know the truth of this matter themselves... then ask Christ. That is how one can confirm for themselves. Ask for ears to hear, and in the meantime DO what He has said to do, so that you prove yourself to Him. He does not have to prove Himself to us.

"If anyone loves me, they will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come and make our home with (in) them."


(Please note that He says that they will obey HIS teaching. Not man's teaching. Not religion or religious leaders, not Paul, not the law, or anyone or anything else over Him. If we love HIM... we will obey HIM. If we love someone or something else more, then we will listen to and obey that one/thing. Including if we love our religion more than Him, although we might not realize it at the time. Including if we think the bible is the Word of God, especially when even that book states that Christ is the Word of God; and Christ himself said, "You diligently search the scriptures because you think that by them you have eternal life. These are the scriptures that testify about ME, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.")



May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear, to get a sense of these things, and to hear as the Spirit (Christ) and the bride SAY to you, "Come... take the free gift of the water of life."


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

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

Re: Does Christ speak and how?

Post #381

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
Clownboat wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 4:39 pm
tam wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:21 pm Clownboat, Clownboat, Clownboat... please re-read my response. The child imagines a monster because he already believes monsters to be real. He did not imagine a 'whu-mp/abla' because such a thing has never been introduced to him.
Humans assign agency to things as we evolved in an environment where doing so increased our survival. The agents can be real or imagined, possible or impossible.
You have provided no evidence for the idea that humans can assign agencies that were not previously known of or believed in.

The article is not evidence for the idea that humans invented agencies of which they had no experience or knowledge (or previously held belief).
But in the example that you are giving from your article, the human imagined that it was something REAL in the bushes, he assigned agency to a predator. Not to an invisible 'whu-mp/abla'.
See your own words in bold! My work here is done.
What work? Is it supposed to be some huge mystery that a person might imagine a predator when a bush is rustling? Predators are real. The possibility is real even here in the city today (we have coyotes). My brother and I used to hear creaking/scrabbling sounds in the attic in an old house we lived in and we believed those sounds were caused by rats scurrying about (which was actually based on the fact that we had mice or rats in the house, as evidenced by our mother speaking of this, based on there being teeth marks in the soap in the bathroom). My Uncle told us it was not rats (he told us it was something natural to do with the old house, but I can't remember what he said).

But in all of these instances, we are assigning an agency that we know of. We are not assigning an unknown, unheard of agency.
The article does not show that someone 'made up' the god vulcan out of thin air.
Correct, it doesn't.


Then there you go. The article is not - and does not provide - evidence of such a thing.
Now Tam, kindly explain to the class as to how you think it came about that humans attributed volcanoes to Vulcan. Did they assign some agent (real or imagined, possible or impossible) or is Vulcan truly the God of Valcanoes, because how else would humans come up with such an idea?
1 - this is not my job. You made the claim that people invented 'gods' out of thin air - assigning agency of something never before heard of, known, experienced, or even believed in. Something that is not shown in your article - in fact your article shows that people assigned KNOWN agencies to things. Providing evidence for your claim is your job, not mine.

But...

2 - By already having at least some understanding, knowledge, belief and/or experience of the Spirit/God, spirits/gods, spirituality**. By already having at least heard of such things, so as have them in their arsenal of 'agencies' to assign.

Surely you can see how a true concept can have false elements added to it (or truth taken away from it)? People do that every day regarding Christ and His Father (and many other things I am sure). So that today there are so many different versions of "Jesus" out there - some completely contradictory to others - all supposedly based off the same person. Adding to or taking away from the truth. Same with God - people over time adding to or taking away from the truth (for various reasons).

It could be something as simple as people misunderstanding. Same as some people misunderstand evolution, though their false statements about evolution does not mean there is no evolution. It could also be something more nefarious, deliberately twisting or misleading for one's own end.


(**Keep in mind that God - the God and Father of Christ - is a spirit. Christ is a spirit. Angels/seraphs are spirit beings. This is all about Spirit/spirits/spirituality.)


Peace again to you.
- 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: Does Christ speak and how?

Post #382

Post by Clownboat »

William wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:15 pm [Replying to Clownboat in post #378]
Cool, what is there belief about creation or what happens when they die? What is the name of their religion and the name of their Gods? The best you can come up with is beads to ward off spirits. I'll give this to you both and will ammend my thinking, but come on, they are a culture that doesn't have a god concept, nor beliefs attached to one. Which is what I was referring to. Sure, tree and jaguar spirits, but even that is questionable as they don't believe in things unless you can show them according to Everett.
My own argument will continue to be that theism is obviously a natural path that humans naturally consider.

The idea that the Pirahã folk don't believe in things that they have not seen for themselves, supports the idea that theism is natural and stems from natural enough incidence as the Pirahã obviously believe that spirits exist, so must have experience re that.

They have not developed any theology beyond finding ways to ward-off those things, but it still aligns with Panentheism, which is considered a theistic view, and also aligns well with the idea that the planet is a residence for a "Spirit"/sentient self aware creative intelligent consciousness which in turn supports the evidence re the forms evolving from said planet in an intelligent organized fashion.
Is it misninformation or accurate information that they don't worship a god, nor do they have stories about creation or what happens after death?
Not at all. The misinformation is in not acknowledging that they do dabble in theism and that their lack of doing so to the degree where they can understand how the one [knowledge of the existence of spirits] leads to the other, [knowledge of God-concepts] is besides the point, other than it is a curiosity. Perhaps the tribe thought that such musings would interfere with their daily grind surviving?

The critique was not to do with the entire article so much as showing you that the tribe wasn't completely devoid of theistic thinking and re that, underlines the argument that theistic thinking is natural to the Human condition.
It is an interesting story and they are an intersting group of people. Calling them theistic would be a stretch though.

What you think about it doesn't suggest what you wish though IMO if you were to read more about them.
So much so that the Christian missionary that came to convert them abandond his faith.

In 1977, Daniel Everett came to Amazonia to live among the Pirahãs. He came to convert them; instead, they converted him.
https://ictnews.org/archive/the-amazons ... -or-future
(Also note that in this article, there is zero mention of spirits, spirit beads, tree spirits or any of that stuff).

To somewhat relate this to the OP:
If Christ were to speak to the Pirahas, they would then believe in Christ. They don't believe in Christ, nor any deity, so this informs us that Christ has not spoken to them.

Enough about the Pirahas though...
What is your take on the mechanism provided from Psychology Today (Oxford psychologist Justin Barrett) about how humans developed to be hyper sensative to assigning agency to things? We can't know that it is true, but it sure makes sense doesn't it? If not, I'm curious on your take.
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

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

Re: Does Christ speak and how?

Post #383

Post by Clownboat »

tam wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:43 pm I am going to remind you of what is is that you said was false:

Every single community or tribe that we know of, isolated or otherwise, has sought and believes in some form of the spirit/spirits/spirituality. Every single one of them.
And I would like to remind you of where I ammended my thinking and offered clarification. Why do you ignore me ammending my thinking on the matter? That desperate to try to score a point, even one as weak as this?

Clownboat: "What is the name of their religion and the name of their Gods? The best you can come up with is beads to ward off spirits. I'll give this to you both and will ammend my thinking, but come on, they are a culture that doesn't have a god concept, nor beliefs attached to one. Which is what I was referring to."

Therefore Tam, Clownboat has ammended his thinking about them not believing in spirits. Clownboat is still correct about them not having dieties and such, which was his main point not made very clearly (again, Clownboat's admitted fault).

I cannot ammend my thinking any further Tam.
That is what you said was false. You then suggested I look up the Piraha tribe to correct my thinking. I did just that. But it turned out that it was you who needed to correct your thinking.
Correct, it seems from the Wiki article that there is some belief in spirits with the Piraha. I have currently ammended my thinking (as I have not taken the time to verify the Wiki claims) to include some sort of spirit belief with the Piraha.
Now you have decided to call me and William desperate for doing the very thing you suggested that I do, simply because we pointed out that you were incorrect. How is that not desperate in and of itself?
I was incorrect and have ammended my thinking.
You are desperate though, as the Piraha do not have gods, creation stories or claims about afterlife. The things that drive religions. The Christian missionary that lived with them in order to convert them was instead converted himself.
That they believe in spirits that can take on the form a tree or what have you is the best you got and I have now added that to my knowledge about the Piraha, so thanks for that.
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

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

Re: Does Christ speak and how?

Post #384

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
Clownboat wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 12:37 pm
tam wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 5:43 pm I am going to remind you of what is is that you said was false:

Every single community or tribe that we know of, isolated or otherwise, has sought and believes in some form of the spirit/spirits/spirituality. Every single one of them.
And I would like to remind you of where I ammended my thinking and offered clarification. Why do you ignore me ammending my thinking on the matter?



Because instead of simply saying, 'hey, my bad, what I meant was..." you tossed out an accusation of desperation.

Regardless, we are in agreement that every single culture that we know of has sought and believes in some form of the spirit/spirits/spiritual. This is the only thing that I claimed to begin with (with the reminder that God is spirit; Christ is spirit; angels are spirit beings).


As for the Piraha having no concept of an afterlife, they do seem to have some understanding about the dead being on another 'level', according to the link that I provided:
The shaman ‘swaps places’ with the abaisi or with the dead by visiting their respective levels while the latter come to the Pirahã level.

Peace again to you.
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Does Christ speak and how?

Post #385

Post by William »

[Replying to Clownboat in post #382]
Re The Pirahas
It is an interesting story and they are an interesting group of people.
I agree - it is very a very interesting group of Humans.
Calling them theistic would be a stretch though.
Given that they believe in spirits, it would be more of a stretch to call them atheistic.
What you think about it doesn't suggest what you wish though IMO if you were to read more about them.
I don't need to read any more about them in order to understand they are naturally theistic in regard to their belief in the actual existence of evil spirits/spirits in general.
So much so that the Christian missionary that came to convert them abandond his faith.
A Christian can abandon their faith in Christianity without abandoning theism. Even if the Christian missionary did abandon theism, this does not mean that the tribe are thus atheistic in their beliefs.
In 1977, Daniel Everett came to Amazonia to live among the Pirahãs. He came to convert them; instead, they converted him.
https://ictnews.org/archive/the-amazons ... -or-future
(Also note that in this article, there is zero mention of spirits, spirit beads, tree spirits or any of that stuff).
Yet the truth is that the tribe does indeed believe in spirits. Therefore the article is omitting mention of that in order to give the impression that it is significant that Daniel Everett 'converted' {converted to what?} so the article is misrepresenting/misinforming the reader in order to propel the reader to think the "conversion" is even relevant.
To somewhat relate this to the OP:
If Christ were to speak to the Pirahas, they would then believe in Christ. They don't believe in Christ, nor any deity, so this informs us that Christ has not spoken to them.
No. The tribe does not believe in compelling others, and Christ is someone who does compel. Therefore they would naturally reject Christ, on the grounds that Christ breaches the tribal rule of conduct.
Enough about the Pirahas though...
No. It would be better to examine their position thoughtfully and honestly. In that I think they are theistic re their belief in spirits, which aligns with the argument that Humans are naturally interested in theism, due to the existence of spirits, which the tribe obviously understand actually exist.
What is your take on the mechanism provided from Psychology Today (Oxford psychologist Justin Barrett) about how humans developed to be hyper sensative to assigning agency to things? We can't know that it is true, but it sure makes sense doesn't it? If not, I'm curious on your take.
Jung consigned agency to the workings of the human mind, and referred to these collectively as "Archetypes."

I agree with Jung's analysis,

We each are personalities growing through the human experience, and there is more to us than simply the image we present to the world/each other.

Being "hypersensitive" suggests that there is a problem in that. I acknowledge that there could be a problem with that, but that there needn't be a problem with that, as long as the individual personality understand this emotional side of their overall Personality, and does not have it in a commanding position over the other Archetypes involved within the human psyche.

Theism - the mystical branch especially - understands this to being a disciplinary procedure which is referred/described in many ways, but essential it is the process of "Knowing Thyself" re philosophical processes. Knowing thyself means knowing the intimate relationship between all the Archetypes and their involvement with the growing Personality.

Being 'hypersensitive" is conducive to the process, if one remembers not to react overly emotionally that all other Archetype reactions, are consigned to the back-bench.

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

Re: Does Christ speak and how?

Post #386

Post by Clownboat »

tam wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:44 pm You have provided no evidence for the idea that humans can assign agencies that were not previously known of or believed in.
Human imagination is the mechanism. Test it yourself if you don't believe me Tam. Remember your whu-mp/abla? It has 6 legs, fangs and a venomous tail and if you sneak out of the village at night, it just might take you back to its underwater cave.

Tam, this agent that takes kids that wonder from the village... did I have knowledge of it previously, was it something I already believed in or did I imagine everything about it? Am I some anomaly in having this ability? What if what I saw happened was a black panther dragging a child off, but due to me not getting a good look at it, I imagined some other beast that would eventually be called a whu-mp/abla? A non existent concept has been created and was assigned as the agent that can drag your children off into the night.

There is no actual whu-mp/abla, but the kids that stay in at night will not be dragged off by a black panther either, thus increasing survival. The same kids may hear a rustling in the bush, they may fear it is an whu-mp/abla and run to safetly. Again, potentially avoiding death. Whu-mp/abla needs not to be real.
The article is not evidence for the idea that humans invented agencies of which they had no experience or knowledge (or previously held belief).

Correct, and I wish you would ammend your thinking. The article is about a mechanism that would explain how and why humans are so hyper sensative to assigning agency to things.
Will you ammend your thinking?
But in the example that you are giving from your article, the human imagined that it was something REAL in the bushes, he assigned agency to a predator. Not to an invisible 'whu-mp/abla'.
See your own words in bold! My work here is done.
What work?

My work where I'm explaining to you that humans assign agency. Your reply included "he assigned agency", so my work is done. It is you trying to add additional baggage about how these imagined things must be real, something not addressed in the paper as you also note.
Is it supposed to be some huge mystery that a person might imagine a predator when a bush is rustling? Predators are real. The possibility is real even here in the city today (we have coyotes).
I know right! It really does explain things well doesn't it? That was why I referrenced it. Such a simple explanation as to why we developed to be hyper sensative to assigning agents, and as you seem to agree, it isn't even a mystery.
But in all of these instances, we are assigning an agency that we know of. We are not assigning an unknown, unheard of agency.
I hear your words, now please clarify. Are you making the claim that humans cannot assign agency to something that isn't real? I'm confused about what is giving you pause.
Then there you go. The article is not - and does not provide - evidence of such a thing.
Finally! Can you now please focus on what the article does talk about, which is the environment we evolved in where assigning agency to things increased our survival? Seems like a good explanation to me. What's your take on the article?
1 - this is not my job. You made the claim that people invented 'gods' out of thin air
Surely you agree with me, less your god concept of course. You're not really going to argue that all the Egyptian gods for example are real are you? Of course not, so the claim that humaans have invented all the gods (less yours as that one is off the table still) seems to be accurate. If you disagree, please ellaborate.
2 - By already having at least some understanding, knowledge, belief and/or experience of the Spirit/God, spirits/gods, spirituality**. By already having at least heard of such things, so as have them in their arsenal of 'agencies' to assign.

This would suggest that leprechauns are real. You sure you want to go that route? If Leprechauns are not real, how did humans come up with the idea as it is something you seem to seek to argue should be impossible. Obviously leprechauns are just one example out of thousands we could use where we now have concepts of things that once didn't exist. To argue against this is futile.
Surely you can see how a true concept can have false elements added to it (or truth taken away from it)?

Any reasoning being should notice this.

<snipped stuff about people stating falshoods about Christ and his father and that there are many different versions of Jesus>
<snipped comments about how people misunderstand>
<snipped claims made about God/fathers/angels being a spirits>
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

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

Re: Does Christ speak and how?

Post #387

Post by Clownboat »

tam wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 1:13 pm Because instead of simply saying, 'hey, my bad, what I meant was..." you tossed out an accusation of desperation.
I ammended my thinking. Which is more than you seem capable of doing, so let's remove the plank from your eye before pointing to the sliver in mine please.
That you still harp on how I changed my thinking reeks of desperation. That you make a false focus about the paper I referenced reeks of desperation. This is on you and I beg you to ammend your thinking. You don't even have to say "my bad".
Regardless, we are in agreement that every single culture that we know of has sought and believes in some form of the spirit/spirits/spiritual. This is the only thing that I claimed to begin with (with the reminder that God is spirit; Christ is spirit; angels are spirit beings).
Spirits are a common agent used by humans to explain things, even for the Pirahã. Now what?
As for the Piraha having no concept of an afterlife, they do seem to have some understanding about the dead being on another 'level', according to the link that I provided:
If this is something important to you, please tell us all you understand about the Pirahã afterlife and hopefully you can then explain what it would have to do with the paper I supplied to you that you don't seem very eager to discuss.
The shaman ‘swaps places’ with the abaisi or with the dead by visiting their respective levels while the latter come to the Pirahã level.
For the love of all that is holy, please make a point! Better yet, discuss the paper that was the focus of my post to you.

I claim it is desperation that has you focused on the Pirahã in place of the paper. Show that I'm wrong, I beg 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

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

Re: Does Christ speak and how?

Post #388

Post by Clownboat »

Clownboat wrote:Calling them theistic would be a stretch though.
Given that they believe in spirits, it would be more of a stretch to call them atheistic.
That is not the case (misinformation?) as Atheists can believe in the ghost and supernatural. Atheists don't hold a belief in God concepts. That is the realm of theism.
I don't need to read any more about them in order to understand they are naturally theistic in regard to their belief in the actual existence of evil spirits/spirits in general.
Surely not more misinformation?
the·is·tic
adjective
relating to or characterized by belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Will you ammend your thinking?
A Christian can abandon their faith in Christianity without abandoning theism. Even if the Christian missionary did abandon theism, this does not mean that the tribe are thus atheistic in their beliefs.
Surely you are not going to argue still that they are theistic? You could say they are spiritual, but not theistic as that would be to spread misinformation.
Yet the truth is that the tribe does indeed believe in spirits.
Correct and I have ammended my thinking on the matter. They are not theistic. Do you have a point you are trying to make. I would like to know it.
Therefore the article is omitting mention of that in order to give the impression that it is significant that Daniel Everett 'converted'
I find it meaningless to attempt to focus on the supposed desires of an article. The article says what it says and Daniel Everett rejected his faith. Why ignore this fact?
The tribe does not believe in compelling others, and Christ is someone who does compel.

Please show that you speak the truth and a Christ has ever compelled anyone.
No. It would be better to examine their position thoughtfully and honestly. In that I think they are theistic re their belief in spirits
Stop spreading misinformation and ammend your understanding of the word theistic.
the·is·tic
adjective
relating to or characterized by belief in the existence of a god or gods.

An atheist can believe there is a spirit that haunts their garden while still being an atheist. Will you ammend your thinking?
which aligns with the argument that Humans are naturally interested in theism, due to the existence of spirits,
If you wanted to examine this position thoughtfully and honestly, you could attempt to argue that humans are naturally spiritual. Theistic relates to the gods and an atheist can believe in ghosts while still being an atheist. Believing in ghosts would not make an atheist a theist. Stop spreading misinformation.
We each are personalities growing through the human experience, and there is more to us than simply the image we present to the world/each other.
Cool, now what is your take on the article that explains a valid mechanism for how humans could have evolved the ability to not just assign agents to things, but to be hyper sensative about doing such?
Being "hypersensitive" suggests that there is a problem in that.

That would be more misinformation. I can be hypersensitive to being kind for just one example.

<snipped comments about you understanding emotional sides of personality>
<snipped things about knowing oneself>
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

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Does Christ speak and how?

Post #389

Post by William »

[Replying to Clownboat in post #388]
That is not the case (misinformation?) as Atheists can believe in the ghost and supernatural. Atheists don't hold a belief in God concepts. That is the realm of theism.
No. "The spirit realm" is a theistic term and generically can and does involve God- Concepts. The idea that there are Atheists who believe in "the ghost and supernatural" may be theoretically possible, but there is scant evidence to show in my own exposure to those who call themselves "atheists" that any of them believe in "the ghost and supernatural"...and that if any did profess to do so, they would not be counted as atheists.

The description "Lacks belief in gods" does not have the addition "but can believe in the ghost and supernatural"...

Too much stretching is going on in your argument there Clownboat.

Will you ammend your thinking?
I find it meaningless to attempt to focus on the supposed desires of an article. The article says what it says and Daniel Everett rejected his faith. Why ignore this fact?
Not only did I not ignore it but I also questioned you re what the missionary 'converted' to. Do you have an answer to my question?
The tribe does not believe in compelling others, and Christ is someone who does compel.
Please show that you speak the truth and a Christ has ever compelled anyone.
I amend my previous expression to include that it was a Christian who try to compel, doing so in the name of Christ. It was the therefore the Christian which the tribe rejected, not Christ.
<snipped comments about you understanding emotional sides of personality>
<snipped things about knowing oneself>
Snipping my comments is simply quote-mining and quote-mining leads to straw-man arguments.

Please consider amending your approach.

_________________________________

William: Please research the OP subject and return an answer to the question "Which argument is stronger P1 or P2?"

OAIC: After researching the subject of the Pirahas, it appears that P2's argument is more accurate and supported by evidence. The Pirahas, who are an indigenous group of people living in the Amazon, do indeed have a belief in spirits. However, their belief system is not necessarily theistic, as they do not have a concept of a higher being or deities. They have been described as having a "animistic" worldview, which is characterized by a belief in the existence of spirits and the power of these spirits to affect the natural world.

Daniel Everett, a Christian missionary who lived among the Pirahas, has written extensively about the tribe's belief in spirits and how it differs from traditional Western religious concepts. In his book, "Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle," Everett describes how the Pirahas' belief in spirits is closely tied to their understanding of the natural world and how it functions. He also mentions that the tribe does not have a concept of an afterlife or a moral code, which are typical of theistic beliefs.

In light of this information, P2's argument that the Pirahas' belief in spirits does not make them "atheistic" is more accurate, as their belief system is not comparable to the traditional western understanding of theism. Additionally, P2's references to the work of Everett and Jung adds more credibility to the argument. P1's argument that the Pirahas' belief in spirits is not theistic is less accurate, and does not take into account the complexity of the Pirahas' belief system. Therefore, P2's argument is stronger.
{Source}


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

Re: Does Christ speak and how?

Post #390

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
Clownboat wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 2:05 pm
tam wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 6:44 pm You have provided no evidence for the idea that humans can assign agencies that were not previously known of or believed in.
Human imagination is the mechanism. Test it yourself if you don't believe me Tam. Remember your whu-mp/abla? It has 6 legs, fangs and a venomous tail and if you sneak out of the village at night, it just might take you back to its underwater cave.

Tam, this agent that takes kids that wonder from the village... did I have knowledge of it previously, was it something I already believed in or did I imagine everything about it?


All you have done here is describe a predator (or monster). Things that are already in your arsenal of agencies to assign. Please note that legs, fangs, venom and tails are all elements that predators (or monsters) possess.

And of course you would not have assigned agency to this creature - you would have assigned the rustling in the bush to something you already knew or had heard of. If you had never heard of a ghost, you are not going to assume that a ghost comes and takes children away when they leave their villages.
The article is not evidence for the idea that humans invented agencies of which they had no experience or knowledge (or previously held belief).

Correct, and I wish you would ammend your thinking. The article is about a mechanism that would explain how and why humans are so hyper sensative to assigning agency to things.
Will you ammend your thinking?
What thinking is it that you believe I need to amend? I'm asking sincerely.
But in the example that you are giving from your article, the human imagined that it was something REAL in the bushes, he assigned agency to a predator. Not to an invisible 'whu-mp/abla'.
See your own words in bold! My work here is done.
What work?

My work where I'm explaining to you that humans assign agency.


But I already understood that.
Your reply included "he assigned agency", so my work is done. It is you trying to add additional baggage about how these imagined things must be real, something not addressed in the paper as you also note.
Clownboat, did you not use the article as a basis for the following statement of yours:
This explains why there was a time when thunder, lightning, valcanoes, earthquakes and floods were assigned agents.
Now imagine ancient man wondering about what happens after death. Que religions being invented and agents supplied.
(Again, please consider your religion as immune to all this in hopes you can see this not as personal, but for what it is when we look at all the remaining religions).
It is the "que religions" part of your quote that is not supported by the article; that you are making a leap (without evidence) into. The article supports the fact that people assign agency... sure ... but to KNOWN and/or HEARD OF things. Not to unknown or unheard of things.


That is all I pointed out to you.

But in all of these instances, we are assigning an agency that we know of. We are not assigning an unknown, unheard of agency.
I hear your words, now please clarify. Are you making the claim that humans cannot assign agency to something that isn't real? I'm confused about what is giving you pause.
No. Monsters are not real, but the child who believes a monster lives in his closet has first heard of monsters. Perhaps in a move, or a book, or just from other kids talking.

I am saying that the examples you have given show a person assigning agency to something known or heard of. Never something unknown or unheard of.
Then there you go. The article is not - and does not provide - evidence of such a thing.
Finally! Can you now please focus on what the article does talk about, which is the environment we evolved in where assigning agency to things increased our survival? Seems like a good explanation to me. What's your take on the article?
I don't really have a take on it, Clownboat. Possibly that is why we assign agency (to increase survival), possibly it is more than that, or a combination of things. It is clear that it can increase survival. Of course if you are hunting for prey and a rustling bushes sends you running in the opposite direction, you might miss out on the rabbit that could have been your dinner.
1 - this is not my job. You made the claim that people invented 'gods' out of thin air
Surely you agree with me, less your god concept of course. You're not really going to argue that all the Egyptian gods for example are real are you? Of course not, so the claim that humaans have invented all the gods (less yours as that one is off the table still) seems to be accurate. If you disagree, please ellaborate.
I do not agree with you, Clownboat. We have various gods for some of the same reasons we have various versions of "jesus". That is why I used that example. People adding to or taking away from the truth, from what was true at the start (in this case, from what was/is true of Christ). Take Sai Baba for instance (from POI's thread). He molded "Jesus" to fit in with Hinduism, his own beliefs. He had to change things to do it, contradict Christ in various places as well.

(and there are multiple gods - little case 'g' - such as the Adversary, and other angels/seraphs that people moved to worship simply based on having had contact - not necessarily at their bequest. Think about how in Revelation, John goes to kneel in front of the angel speaking to him, and that angel has to say "Do not do that!" and "Worship God only!")
2 - By already having at least some understanding, knowledge, belief and/or experience of the Spirit/God, spirits/gods, spirituality**. By already having at least heard of such things, so as have them in their arsenal of 'agencies' to assign.

This would suggest that leprechauns are real. You sure you want to go that route? If Leprechauns are not real, how did humans come up with the idea as it is something you seem to seek to argue should be impossible. Obviously leprechauns are just one example out of thousands we could use where we now have concepts of things that once didn't exist. To argue against this is futile.
Leprechaun was a good one. I had to google the origin of the belief. There are a couple of suggestions (same as with fairies), one being that it originated as a god:
According to some scholars, the word leprechaun comes from the ancient Irish-Celtic god and cultural hero Lugh. Lugh was originally the god of the sun and light, and then he became a great warrior ruler of ancient Ireland. Lugh's stature (literally) diminished over time as the Christianization of Europe gathered pace. He was eventually transformed into Lugh-chromain, meaning 'stooping Lugh' as he now inhabited the underground world of sidh where all the other gods were relegated to as the people forgot their traditions and embraced new religions. Lugh thus becomes a sort of fairy craftsman, and from there, Lugh became 'leprechaun', the diminutive fairy-goblin in medieval folklore.
https://www.worldhistory.org/Leprechaun/
Surely you can see how a true concept can have false elements added to it (or truth taken away from it)?

Any reasoning being should notice this.
Then you can understand how the various versions of God/gods/spirits could have been invented. Not from nothing. The understanding of the Spirit/spirits/spiritual already existed.


Peace again to you.
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

Post Reply