Special Rules... Why?

[POI]

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

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

[POI]

Christians, allow me to try and push this along. Based upon my 'world view', I should be a vegan. But I'm not. Therefore, I apply special rules, or a special set of 'logic tools', for why I can justifiably eat meat. See, that wasn't so hard. Am I going to try and do better? Honestly, no. I love meat too much, sorry. But my compartmentalized rationale here is NOT LOGICAL. And I know it. Can any of you folks admit the same in belief about the God of the Bible speaking to folks?

The point of this thread is to ask believers why they apply special rules for the Bible. If you do not think you are, then please explain why?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to POI in post #67]

The quote box is a bit messed up there at the bottom and when I have more time I will respond to the rest, but I just want to point out an example of how I feel this conversation has been going:

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

I have not once told you to open your ears.

I don't know if a person even can open their own ears.

Asking for one's ears to BE opened (or asking FOR ears to hear) is not the same thing as opening your own ears.


Peace again.

[POI]

The quote box is a bit messed up there at the bottom and when I have more time I will respond to the rest, but I just want to point out an example of how I feel this conversation has been going:

I already fixed it. My keyboard was wigging out, so I had to restart it then fix.

Further, when you also see my response in post 71, my point is that my admitted cognitive dissonance is no different than yours about the Bible.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #66]

Perhaps I don't understand the argument. Are you saying that the fact that something happens rarely is evidence that it never happened at all?
If that is not your argument, what exactly is the argument here?

[Difflugia]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #66]

Perhaps I don't understand the argument. Are you saying that the fact that something happens rarely is evidence that it never happened at all?
If that is not your argument, what exactly is the argument here?

No, I'm saying (as is OP) that something that happens rarely should be treated with corresponding skepticism. Christians treat nonbiblical stories of magic with appropriate skepticism, why not biblical ones?

To put it another way, Christians seem to think that Bible stories shouldn't be subject to statistical analysis.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #66]

Perhaps I don't understand the argument. Are you saying that the fact that something happens rarely is evidence that it never happened at all?
If that is not your argument, what exactly is the argument here?

No, I'm saying (as is OP) that something that happens rarely should be treated with corresponding skepticism. Christians treat nonbiblical stories of magic with appropriate skepticism, why not biblical ones?

To put it another way, Christians seem to think that Bible stories shouldn't be subject to statistical analysis.

I tend not to subject historical events to statistical analysis.

It is statistically unlikely that newly designed luxury ocean liner deemed to be unsinkable would sink on its maiden voyage.

It is statistically unlikely that a man who is not actively trying to be struck by lightning would be struck by lightning 35 times in his life, survive all of them, and then be shot to death. (See the life of Roy Sullivan)

It is statistically unlikely that anyone (for example, Ann Hodges) would be hit by a meteorite.

It is statistically unlikely that an obscure religious teacher from a minor religion in a backwater part of the Roman Empire, who was executed as a criminal without ever wielding any political power, would start the most pervasive religious movement the world has ever seen.

Since these things happen rarely, what is the corresponding level of skepticism with which they should be treated?

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #66]

Perhaps I don't understand the argument. Are you saying that the fact that something happens rarely is evidence that it never happened at all?
If that is not your argument, what exactly is the argument here?

No, I'm saying (as is OP) that something that happens rarely should be treated with corresponding skepticism. Christians treat nonbiblical stories of magic with appropriate skepticism, why not biblical ones?

To put it another way, Christians seem to think that Bible stories shouldn't be subject to statistical analysis.

In my experience, people identifying as " Christians" generally treat other belief systems (nonbiblical stories of magic) as "of (the Christian) Devil" (Satan) rather than with skepticism.

[Difflugia]

I tend not to subject historical events to statistical analysis.

These aren't historical events. They're stories about historical events.

It is statistically unlikely that newly designed luxury ocean liner deemed to be unsinkable would sink on its maiden voyage.

Exactly. That means that before we believe them, we should have sufficient evidence that the accounts are accurate.

It is statistically unlikely that a man who is not actively trying to be struck by lightning would be struck by lightning 35 times in his life, survive all of them, and then be shot to death. (See the life of Roy Sullivan)

I just survived 35 lightning strikes, too. Fortunately, I haven't been shot to death yet, so my story is at least somewhat more likely. Do you believe me? Why or why not? What's the difference between the life of Difflugia and the life of Roy Sullivan? That's not a rhetorical question, but gets to the heart of this discussion.

It is statistically unlikely that anyone (for example, Ann Hodges) would be hit by a meteorite.

Very low. How good is the documentation that someone, for example Ann Hodges, was?

It is statistically unlikely that an obscure religious teacher from a minor religion in a backwater part of the Roman Empire, who was executed as a criminal without ever wielding any political power, would start the most pervasive religious movement the world has ever seen.

Since these things happen rarely, what is the corresponding level of skepticism with which they should be treated?

And this is the exact slippery slope we see with the argument about historical documentation for Caesar. If you can pretend that our confidence level for some historical events should be lower, maybe we'll eventually believe that our evidence for them is as bad as that for supernatural Bible stories.

You indeed listed a number of events that were improbable. Why do you believe them? Are you treating the Bible with the same level of skepticism? Is the historical evidence behind the Bible comparatively as good as for these other improbable events and you're being properly skeptical? Is the historical evidence for these other events as bad as that for the Bible and the rest of us should be more credulous? Which end are we at?

[William]

Re Post #42

The only 'evidence' shared is a dialogue between you and yourself. We know you exist, but we do not know if Christ/Jesus exists.

the message was not generated in that manner. Which is to say, the message didn't just "pop into my head" and I then tranposed it into written word.

[Replying to POI in post #44]

I will go over the message I shared in ( those two posts) and explain why it is not just a matter of "talking to myself."

Well then, I will await your follow-up before I respond. Thanks.

(My comments re the interaction are in red)
__________
The Voice of Christ: In The Rabbit Hole…Put That On The List
“Why give the Bible special circumstances, special privileges, special pleading, or special rules?”

“The list” is my journal, where I also use as the document where selections are made in generating these interactions. The instruction was for me to put the sentence ““Why give the Bible special circumstances, special privileges, special pleading, or special rules?“ on said list. The “Rabbit Hole” refers to the Universe, of which we are “In”.

Medium (Entity): Done.

The Voice of Christ: Christian mythology re God " It helps makes the stinky hole I was pushed through in order to get here, a purposeful experience..."
(Every Key Picks Its Own Lock)
It should come as no surprise that you can see the signal.

TVoC is answering the question and to this point is not agreeing that the bible is any more special than any other thing.

It is also pointed out that I can “see” “the signal”, which in turn reminds me of my own long journey of relationship with The Father and why it is that I can “see”. The “key” saying is self-explanatory.

Medium (Entity): The fog lifts, is “why” I can do so…

The Voice of Christ: Transferring your awareness I Am Hearing You

There is an acknowledgement of my comment which reflects another way of understanding the idea of “fog lifting” (thoughts clearing et al) – as my awareness being “transferred” which in itself is significant of being focused rather than distracted.

Medium (Entity): Indeed…that is the point. The “hearing” is mutual.

Therein I am also acknowledging the relationship is built on listening and hearing and specific to how the process is meant to be in order for the process to work…as is Tam’s argument.

The Voice of Christ: “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.”
Temporary
Okay - facts are great.
A type of ad hominem argument in which one discredits a position by asserting that the proponent has acted contradictory to their stated position.
A question was asked… “Can you please upload a video of the Old Soul (aka Voice of Christ) so I can observe?"

In that I have taken your question and added it to my Journal. The reply is that the “temporary” could mean that it would only be a short-term “fix” as it does not explain everything re finding out what is going on really (self-deception) or even what is “other” – the alternative if it is not Christ and it is not self-deception.
The focus is on finding out facts (truth) and the comment re the question appears to highlight the possibility of this particular fallacy maybe the underlying reason the question exists and points to another question of similar attitude.
The “pointing” was done through the selection of a journal entry which was a link to a conversation I had a while back, with someone on this Message Board.

Medium (Entity): What was the answer?

The Voice of Christ: The Answer was that “We do not need any such evidence. We only need to observe the goings on of the planet in relation to our experience of it, and gather the data of experience as it presents.
I don't even have an image in my mind as to what Old Soul looks like, in which to show you.
My experience of Old Soul has everything to do with my particular subjective experience and record of that, which I use as a means of communing with the invisible minds that both me, and Old Soul - use together, for that purpose.

That is the only evidence I personally require."

I am being quoted and this is reminding me that such questions come up and for whatever reasons they do come up, I can answer them.

Medium (Entity): Interesting…

This is not commenting on the answer I wrote in the quote from the link but that I was given the link to find a similar style of question being asked and how I had answered that question, then.

The Voice of Christ: Thoughts

I am then asked for my thoughts about this interesting process and what it might point to re evidence and my reply is based upon the facts as they pertain to the moment being had (the conversation unfolding.)

Medium (Entity): Yes – minds corelating into "Mind".

The Voice of Christ: Where do you find comfort?

Medium (Entity): In the communion of these minds.

The Voice of Christ: Betterment re “Functional Cluster”.
Alignment
Tales From Topographic Oceans

The “minds” are referred to as functional clusters which are aligned and then I am directed to the “Topographic Oceans” poem where I select the following line I see as being aligned with the subject being discussed.

Medium (Entity): “You seekers of the truth accepting that reason will relive and breath and hope and chase and love
For you and you and you.”

The Voice of Christ: "You" are.
(10.000 individual minds focused upon the same goal = Space Telescope)
Science & Spirituality
The One We Cannot See is The One We Still Can Hear.

The principle of “many-minds” achieving great things is mentioned by way of explaining the process involved and how science and spirituality can be combined re what we cannot see but still can hear. (The way these messages are generated as an example of how science can be applied.)

Medium (Entity): It would seem that IF enough “hear” THEN “changes can happen.”
Some appear to turn from their "unsuccessful attempt to find something".

This is a reasonable perception to consider. I am then lead to another post I made in answer to a question by someone, here on this message board. (Debating.)

The Voice of Christ: A conversation was had...
“The concepts themselves require change, and perhaps this is what is meant by evil being deleted. The personalities change as the concepts change/the concepts change as the personalities change.

Having the belief that soul and personality are the same, makes the change - impossible, as far as I can tell, because the individual has no helper to activate said change, being in a position where trust in ones personality ["soul" in your regard] can be subject to those things you mentioned - hallucination, lies, et al.

Or as Bob Dylan wrote in a song;

Preacher was talking there's a sermon he gave
He said every man's conscience is vile and depraved
You cannot depend on it to be your guide
When it's you who must keep it satisfied.
Soul - as an aspect of unchangeable YHVH - independent helper of the growing/changing personality, allows one to trust in something greater than oneself.”

Medium (Entity): Something worth pondering on…"Soul" as the activated "Voice of Christ" one (a personality) "hears" and responds to/with.

Herein, the information is similar re the belief that folk are “self-deluded” which your own argument is also implying and my understanding of the process being explained as something real rather than delusional.
The conversation continues in a following post, - this time for emphasis re science/examining evidence in a scientific manner - is time and date-stamped and links selected from the Journal List (aka “ComList” {Communication List}) are also included.



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.

While I think the question is relevant and requires a well thought out answer, I preferred (in this instance) to simply ask my own question, acknowledging with that, that we are able to do this.

The Voice of Christ: Never a dull moment

The reply itself is read by me to both signify I have not answered the question asked, and that this ability we have to imagine (anything – including future scenarios) staves off ennui and is useful to that end.

The Voice of Christ: Overmorrow.

ME: Foresight has it’s advantages!

I am acknowledging the idea of “future” with “overmorrow” which simply refers to “the day after tomorrow” pointing to a possible near-future event.
I am then linked to a YouTube video regarding the idea that we exist within a simulation – that the reality we are experiencing is “simulated”.

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.

Re this, I am also internally aware that The Father (re Christ) is the one who created the universe we are experiencing as “Real”.
Since I get the gist of the content of the video (having watched it all and therein discovered the science used to explain why we should investigate the idea of Simulation Theory) I understand the reference re the link has to do with the subject of “what we are involved with” – not so much as to whether it is or isn’t a simulation, but that whatever it is, it has rule-sets which were built into it by The Father.


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

ME: Indeed.

Clearly, the advice is not to believe we are (or are not) within a simulated reality experience, but that there are rules which must be followed (re the questions posed under the assumption that those claiming relationship with Christ are self-deluded et al.)
Surprisingly – I am then lead to another link which again concerns Donald Hoffman’s insights on reality being ultimately “consciousness.”

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

Here, The Christ comments that consciousness is thought of a secondary to reality, followed by the comment “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.

In this part of the exchange, it is illuding to something POI and I have since had some discussion about in that “talking to oneself” is what “thinking” is and (from my perspective) in the case of The Father, the idea of creating “things which can be experienced” (this universe) began as thought (self-talking) and therein “became” (were “simulated”)

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.)

This part of the exchange delves deeper into the process (re the rules The Father inserted into the reality experience (this universe) mentioning an individual personalities’ demeanour re the way in which they personally identify and how this is akin to the “law of attraction” which has much to do with how an individual proceeds with their experience (such as denying themselves access to solving puzzles/mysteries by hand-waving such as self-deception (woo et al) and this is seen to be a conscious choice on the part of the individuals intelligence and lacks wisdom.

The Voice of Christ: Preparing for the Hunt

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

I commented this, because often that is the case with those who have applied the wisdom that they are seeking like-minded individual’s through which they can connect with and build a strong case for said mindful processes being experienced in relation to the external experience. (These are mentioned as “functional clusters” earlier on) and these “clusters” represent various philosophical positions – regardless of whether they are based in Materialism, Supernaturalism, or Naturalism.

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.

The exceptional manner in which the above is generated aligned with the subject matter is underlined by the second sentence which – from the selected (randomly) line-entry of the journal was simply one word “Teleology” which I chose to use the meaning of rather than the word itself in the making of said sentence..

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

This “Reasonable approach” is significant of the wise idea that we are better to focus on the reality of our “”Self” (as a growing personality) than to fuss (and fight) over philosophical stories/analogies/beiefs “explaining the universe” for it is the personalities and – to the point – the consciousness involved with the building of said personalities which are at least fact. The stories might well be “fiction” but certainly of less immediate importance, overall. But…

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 story reflects two (main) different approaches taken by personalities on the subject of Christ.

The Voice of Christ: Oneness … One should pay noted attention to the mark of YHVH on the worm’s end...

This ties in with what to “look” for (what to test) re “functional clusters” (groups of personalities) re “the hunt” (wisely hunting) we (in Christ) are hunting for “likeminded” and the “Mark of YHVH” mentioned is not specific to a physical mark (re what to look for) but a “spiritual” mark which identifies the user-personality with The Father. The physical mark of YHVH is useful in terms of “signal” mentioned (It should come as no surprise that you can see the signal.) and (as a functional cluster) “signs” (Sig) as in;
Insight (Insightful)
Signifying
Design
Sigil
Sight
Foresight (Farsightedness)
Intransigent
Assigned
Signposts
Significant (Insignificant)
Sigh


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

In this case “The Mark of YHVH” is identified as a six-pointed star. More to the point, this also engages with the clues which present themselves within the reality experience the personality is been grown (re the rule-set) as can be seen in the language structure pointing (as evidence) to supporting the idea of an overall mindful process (biblically identified as “YHVH”.) which means, that like Math, Language is not an invention but a discovered thing.

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 place…the universe…although it could be argued also that The Hub is another such place re “imagination”.

(While it is argued that the universe is “ordinary” (in that it exists) it is still an extraordinary thing to experience.)

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.

It is being pointed out (in this message generating process) that any (seemingly) random selection can be shown to produce results that shouldn’t be possible in a truly random (re mindless) universe.


The Voice of Christ: Peace To You.

ME: And to You, also.

Session ends with mutual respect between the communicators.

[POI]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #66]

Perhaps I don't understand the argument. Are you saying that the fact that something happens rarely is evidence that it never happened at all?
If that is not your argument, what exactly is the argument here?

No, I'm saying (as is OP) that something that happens rarely should be treated with corresponding skepticism. Christians treat nonbiblical stories of magic with appropriate skepticism, why not biblical ones?

To put it another way, Christians seem to think that Bible stories shouldn't be subject to statistical analysis.

In my experience, people identifying as " Christians" generally treat other belief systems (nonbiblical stories of magic) as "of (the Christian) Devil" (Satan) rather than with skepticism.

Yes, what you say is, in part, correct <sometimes>. Data even mentions that could be one of the reasons in the quoted OP (i.e.) "I'm pretty sure they are lying or delusional. Or perhaps even under demonic influence.". Not sure if this means he believes that these could be 'demons' which are, or are not, necessarily associated with 'Satan'?

But Data somehow does not identify himself as a 'Christian', even though he believes in and loves Jehovah? But I digress here.

My OP seems to only land with the folks that believe Jehovah/God/YWHW/Jesus/Christ no longer speaks to folks. Which, so far, looks to involve Data, Realworldjack, and maybe now bjs1.

I did ask Data why believe the folks in the Bible were spoken to? Data's response is simple. He read passages in the Bible which state God/Jehovah/other no longer speaks to folks. For which, I did not ask follow-up questions, though I wanted to... Which are:

A) Why believe what the Bible says here, especially since you believe the Bible has errors?
B) When other holy books make such claims, you likely dismiss them, but for a differing reason(s). What is/are those reason(s)? It's a made-up book, other?
C) Why not instead believe what you believe about all ancient said holy books from antiquity; that anyone who has EVER claimed contact from the 'above' are instead delusional or lying? Why does the Bible get a special pass?

The above three questions are now open to Data, Realworldjack, and maybe bjs1.