Hi Tec - I'd have thought it's only problematic if one wants to convince others that one's own revelation is the correct one and that conflicting revelations are wrong.
After 2000 years since JC was executed ,why have we heard not a whisper from GOD ALMIGHTY ?
by smiddy 268 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
adamah
I think you might be missing the understanding that these people heard and obeyed the same Spirit, the same God... though today He speaks through His Son.
How do you KNOW that it's the "same spirit"? You don't KNOW that. NO ONE does, or ever COULD know, since it's UNKNOWABLE.
Have you not noticed how the depiction of the spirit of God changes significantly from Genesis to Revelation? Have you not noticed how God starts out quite anthromorphic in Genesis, being limited in terms of His traits (eg non-omniscient, not all-powerful, but easily frustrated and hence with anger-management issues)? By the time you get to later OT scribes, and by the God depicted by Jesus, Jehovah got omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
Did you just ignore the evolution in his behavior, or do you rationalize it away with defense mechanisms and post-hoc rationalizations ("lying scribes", or anything that seems fishy gets the boot and ignored)? That's a moral determination, using your "flawed" internal moral compass.
I suppose the same unchanging single personality underlying all the contrasting God depictions might possibly exist, but there's HUGE continuity errors introduced in Genesis very early on, and it just gets worse from there. By the time a person learns something about ancient literary traditions in other cultures, and examines the archaeologicial evidence (that completely FAILS to verify the Biblicial account, and worse, points to the Biblical claims as being an impossibility), then the picture just gets even worse. Combined with MRI studies of voice-hearers and those who experience psychoses which leads some to believe in God, and the "God Hypothesis" is ham-strung.
Not that the Torah ISN'T a fascinating historical record of an ancient civilization, just that there's no reason to think that it would contain LITERAL OR METAPHORICAL "truths" which are more worthy of study vs the 1000's of other artifacts from ancient cultures, literary works written BEFORE the concept of recording history ever arose as a separate discipline: the concept of recording history is a fairly-late concept, the idea of leaving an accurate and honest depiction of events for future generations. People just didn't think like that, and it wasn't their goal for writing (and hence why the "geneologies in the Bible are such a mess: they're offered to support a theological claim, NOT as a literal record of relations amongst people). The idea of leaving an accurate record of historical events for future generations is an anachronistic insertion of a concept from recent times which cannot help but color the readings of most moderns, who likely aren't familiar with studying ancient literature to understand ancient thinking (esp if it's their "Holy" Bible which they cannot HELP but read devotionally, not criticially).
Even setting aside ALL of the overwhelming of evidence from science (biology, physics, etc) for a minute, a vastly-simplier explanation than God existing is that deities are characters, written by a string of authors over multiple generations who've likely never even met in person, and at times weren't even AWARE of the other's work (and hence added contradictions); at other times they WERE aware of the works of prior authors, but they derived their inspiration for the actions of the Jehovah character largely dependent upon the current priestly classes CONCEPTIONS and ongoing discussions of what behavior they imagined God would/should display. We have rabbinical Talmudic discussions where you can see ongoing evolving discussions of interpretations, which ALSO change over time. It's hard to imagine that the same basic process DIDN'T happen amongst the elite who were honored to write the Torah.
The motivation for writing? The thinking is that the Persian Empire had recently liberated the Jewish slaves in Babylon (the first benefactors of Zoroasterian's anti-slavery laws WERE the Jews held captivity in Babylon, who ironicially took the first chance they got to start up the slave trade again in Israel AFTER the Persians were defeated by Greeks). The Persians offered to let the Jews return to their destroyed homeland and rebuild their Temple (and pay a Temple tax to the Persians) IF they committed to finalizing a SINGLE code of laws expressed in writing, and Ezra was appointed the job since he "remembered the Torah by heart" and was able to reconstruct it (Ezra 7:12–26 even records the authorization). Thus the stimulus was dangled in front of the Jewish leaders to submit an official code of laws to gain their autonomy, although it was a work open to subsequent modification (as most books of legal codes are) since scribes often felt compelled to "correct" errors and resolve contradictions (often introducing more errors than they fix).
(As Leolaia has written, the Book of Job shows MAJOR evidence of tampering over time, with later redactors adding a narrative "frame" and passages into the poetic "core" to create the opening scene in Heaven where Satan is part of God's team, serving on the Divine Counsel (which somewhat undermines the logic of the core poetry, since the message is SUPPOSED to be that God works in mysterious ways, but the prologue scene REVEALS that the 'mystery' is just a bar bet where Satan bet God that Job would break under pressure, and God wanted to prove Satan wrong, so he ALLOWED Satan to cause bad things to happen to Job, just so God could add insult to injury by later telling him that Job couldn't understand it even if he told him why. Nice, eh? The later author FUBARed the whole "working in mysterious ways" theodicial excuse by BLOWING the MYSTERY of why Job was suffering, when it would've been more effective if LEFT unexplained.)
The development of the Greek Septuagint was a HUGE FUBAR translation that introduced many errors vs the Hebrew Tanakh percursors; the Septuagint was likely the stimulus for Jesus "woe to you lying scribes" comments. Even the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls show massive evidence of 'redacting', a nice way of saying the scribe felt compelled to altering the parts the Torah didn't like, or to "clarify", since it disagreed with THEIR current theology'. Also ALL languages change with time, and the meanings of words change). These are part of the reasons WHY you see evidence of syncretism in the Torah, where later-period writings suspiciously became alot like Zoroasterian beliefs (eg introduction of Satan), and where Far Eastern Buddhist Vedic religious traditions and concepts crept into Judaism via the Persian Empire, so Jesus started to adopt a Far-Eastern asceticism (vow of poverty, forgoing of worldly goods, etc). Coincidence? Hardly: syncretism is going on ALL AROUND YOU and you're unaware of it. It's part of life. Judaism OUTLAWED such changes, trying to hold onto a past that never even existed (except in their imaginations).
Though I do understand that you and others are not going to believe that. And I do understand that someone who does not have faith (athiest) must have another explanation other than that Christ exists, is alive, and does speak. I get that from a non-believer. But not so much from someone who claims to have faith, to believe the accounts (whether in whole or part) as written.
Well, that's kind of the point I was making: believers believe based ON faith, alone, and looking for evidence is actually a sign that they don't "get it". Hence, they should believe in God DESPITE ALL evidence, which is kind of the acid test for a recalcitrant Christian who is not worth talking with; I'll ask them what possible evidence could be presented to convince them that the Bible is only the work of ancient clever men who made up a deity? If they say NONE, they aren't worth discussing, because they HAVE committed to ignoring ANY and ALL POSSIBLE EVIDENCE, so they're actually IMMUNE from reasoning and rationality. Their mind is snapped tightly-shut, so there's no point in talking.
As a rationalist, I'd HAVE NO CHOICE BUT to become a believer YESTERDAY IF presented sufficent evidence to conclude that 1) God exists 2) The God is the same one who inspired the Bible, and wants us to become Christians and believe in Jesus. The term "theistic rationalist" is NOT contradictory, and is POSSIBLE, but the only thing lacking is..... evidence.
HOWEVER, I'm HIGHLY DOUBTFUL that it would happen, since Christianity has developed the OPPOSITE of rational skepticism, refusing to examine claims on the basis of evidence. Instead, the Bible values "the faith of a child", which to ME is a code word for "looking for suckers who just fell off the turnip truck". The clarion call of "you can trust me, HONEST!" is the theme song of scammers and con-artists since the dawn of mankind (actually, isn't that the ENTIRE basis of the deception used by the serpent in order to trick Eve? "Just trust me?" So Jesus is asking humanity to "just trust me!" and we're supposed to NOT ask for proof? Once bitten, twice shy?).
Except that few religions teach that the Spirit of Christ is alive and does speak... not truly. That is why they say, come to me (men, religion) over... go to Him.
Yeah, the problem is you admit the Bible is tampered with, so how do you trust which advice is true?
The voice in that video is VERY intrusive. I am not speaking about that. Christ is quiet. One HAS to listen.
Listen for WHAT? How do you KNOW? Internal validation again, AKA faith.
Wait... those are ALL voices she hears? I thought it was just the whispering one. I also thought someone was with her in the kitchen. So yeah, I am not speaking about anything like that. Not at all. That is not my experience.
Of course that's not YOUR experience: from the first page of ANY perceptual science textbook, EVERYONE'S experiences are going to be VARIABLE, hence perceived differently by each individual. You cannot be sure that I perceive ANYTHING the same way you do, and vice-versa, but it doesn't really matter, since no matter WHAT it is that each of us experiences as the perception (say, of a chair), we can all agree to call the source that leads to the variable perception something (a name), so we're referring to the same object.
The perceptual problem is compounded when the stimulus is being internally-generated from within the brain itself: all bets are off as to their commonality, but all of our perceptions MAY share certain TRAITS which allows us to categorize and describe them.
Personal experiences can indeed be flawed. But if what one hears also happens to be true, then there is a bit more validation to that, even if only for that person.
That only begs the question: how do you know it IS true? Again, you're susceptible to internal validation and confirmation bias, since you aren't an unbiased independent observer who's able to determine IF the claim is true (scientists don't serve as their own test subjects, exactly for that reason). I'm not saying it's impossible to formulate a testable verifiable way to challenge the validity of your voice, it's just that most believers actually ARE unwilling to do so, since it potentially robs them of something that protects them (as a defense mechanism). Usually they'll claim that the presence of a skeptic and doubters alters their voices capabilities (by interfering with faith), and they blame any failures on that....
Other people do not have to take their word for it, but they could experience the same... and if they did, would it matter that no one else believed them? Faith is not something that man can give another man.
Again, that's the VERY DEFINITION of internal validation, which is another way of saying "blind faith". As you point out, faith is NOT transferrable, so you could be 100% SURE of something, yet STILL be wrong. It happens ALL the TIME, where people die believing they're right (eg "I didn't THINK the gun was loaded, so I cleaned it"), but it doesn't make it so.
I do hear within. In the spirit. As do others I know who are listening, in spirit. I do not have any sort of psychological disorder. I do have to LISTEN, to hear... and there are many things that might cause me NOT to hear (listening to other voices - what other men, religion, etc, have to say, because their baggage and teachings can be very loud.
The problem is you're living amidst a group of those who similarly felt "moved by the Holy Spirit" in the past, and GENUINELY BELIEVED in their heart of hearts that they felt the love of Jesus, etc. We KNOW it wasn't really real, since many of us have gotten similar feelings and emotions via OTHER methods (eg sex, inspired by music composition/performance, reading/writing moving poetry, looking at the beauty in nature, watching a compelling story in a movie, etc, etc). Human emotions are pliable, and people SHOULD be inspired by SOMETHING, but they shouldn't misattribute such feelings to deities or beings since that's a waste of time.
Nothing is forced upon me. Now recognizing Him (now understanding that HE does speak), I realize that I heard Him long before I recognized Him... as many people do.
He can speak in clear words, dreams, understanding and revelation simply received (like inspiration -> inspired - > in spirit); in images; in reminders of scripture or something written from any source brought to mind; and also in recognition of hearing truth in something someone else shares in spirit.
What you're describing now sounds like an internal dialog, and not so much a "voice"; however, you STILL IMO need a better method of verifying "truths" aside from trusting an internal dialogue.
The Bible is thus in essence an ancient dairy of voice hearers, and it appeals with a strong resonance with those who also experience voices.
That is an interesting statement, and a bit misleading, though I am not saying intentionally so. Most who believe in the bible would be faster to denounce someone who claimed to hear the voice of Christ, than even an atheist would. Most believe that sort of thing happened to certain special people... and does not happen today, and certainly NOT to some nobody. What makes YOU so special, is the response... or perhaps 'you're listening to a demon or bad spirit'; so that hearing a voice, even the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Christ... is not seen as something good, but something to be avoided at all costs.
I have no doubt people DO experience internal voices that they attribute to external sources; that's been verified, and seems quite analogous to physical conditions like body-integrity identity disorder, where a person loses a sense of identity of what clearly a part of their body (eg arm) as "theirs"; the same disorder likely explains sex-identity disorders, where a person truly doesn't feel "right" living in their own skin. It seems likely the same phenomena can happen with internal dialogue,or even with dissociative identity disorders (multiple personalities), where a person can break into multiples. However, rather than developing discrete identities with unique personalities, the voices can be ascribed to different sources, depending on what they WANT to believe it to be, their cultural context, etc.
As you point out, the Bible heavily influences the public's reaction to anyone who claims to hear voices, since the writers of the Bible were no strangers to what was likely a common condition in the past, and issues a warning to those who'd publicly admit their perception as potentially "false prophets", subject to stoning! Obviously, those who claim to hear voice of God are threatening to their scheme, and bad for business and (rightly) viewed as potential competitors.
But again, I don't doubt anyone hears a voice in their head, just that they claim they KNOW the source if they claim it's outside of their own subconscious mind.
I, personally, did not even notice all the examples of those who HEARD... you know how you can read something and not pay attention to what is actually being said? I mean, its in there... but it only applied to those people, and certainly would not apply to people today, right? That was my thinking... until someone pointed out our Lord's own words on the matter, and that Christ IS alive, and does speak.
It's hard to imagine that a voice hearer WOULDN'T be subconsciously influenced by reading the account of other voice hearers, since someone who DOESN'T hear voices would reasonably stop and think, "wait a minute: that's not normal" (just as most readers do when encountering the story of a talking serpent, whereas someone who hallucinated such images wouldn't think twice about it, OR it would register with them as special: "you SEE! It happened to someone else, TOO!"). Point being, it's impossible for you to KNOW what it's like to NOT hear a voice, just like its impossible to know what it IS like; the only means to bridge the experiential gap is via use of logic and reasoning.
I don't think there are as many people claiming to hear their God as you have stated. They might claim that they were spoken to in some way (a sign, or a feeling, or something, or through their church, or through an experience), but not too many claim to hear direct. The thing I think that scares most people are all the claims that some make that God told them to kill their children, or their spouse, or their parents, etc. I have no reason to doubt that those people heard a voice (or voices) telling them to do that (other than perhaps a few frauds trying to get out of trouble), but a claim does not make it so. That is why we must TEST the spirits. Test the message. Test against Christ and against love, and even if your only source is love and what Christ is WRITTEN to have said, then do that test.
Again, you don't trust the Bible, so you're actually relying on your own "horribly flawed" (per the Bible) moral compass in order to determine a proper course of action; in fact, in order to know IF God's law even applies to your situation REQUIRES making a moral determination.
So you're actually in no different of a position from all the other humans living on the Planet. You're just adding another level of complexity that's unneeded accessory vestigial organ of morality, since it carries quite a burden over simply building your OWN moral compass directly (by taking a course in ethics/philosophy, building your OWN brain power).
Though it is interesting that some of the preconcieved biases and prejudices against those who hear voice(s) are being shattered. Good. Regardless of the source of that voice or not.
Hey, I'm ALL for the advancement of humanity via the sharing and gaining of knowledge, and that includes explaining the voice-hearing phenomena to both the sufferers AND those who are carrying ignorant Bible-based bigotry AGAINST them, just the same. I like to believe that increasing awareness and knowledge will improve the conditions for ALL humans TODAY, in the here and now; why wait for tomorrow to act on what IS known today?
Adam
-
tec
You sound very familiar, Adamah, and I feel like I've had this particular discussion before, so I am not going to address all of what you have written (though I did get to most of it). But just the points that stand out to me.
How do you KNOW that it's the "same spirit"? You don't KNOW that. NO ONE does, or ever COULD know, since it's UNKNOWABLE.
I can know, by asking Christ. Anyone can. It is NOT unknowable.
Have you not noticed how the depiction of the spirit of God changes significantly from Genesis to Revelation? Have you not noticed how God starts out quite anthromorphic in Genesis, being limited in terms of His traits (eg non-omniscient, not all-powerful, but easily frustrated and hence with anger-management issues)? By the time you get to later OT scribes, and by the God depicted by Jesus, Jehovah got omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
Did you just ignore the evolution in his behavior, or do you rationalize it away with defense mechanisms and post-hoc rationalizations ("lying scribes", or anything that seems fishy gets the boot and ignored)? That's a moral determination, using your "flawed" internal moral compass.
You actually answer your own questions when you speak about tampering and translation issues and such to various writings... so how would 'lying scribes' be a defense mechanism for me... but an actual explanation for you?
Has nothing to do with what seems 'fishy', but only to do with what is in line with the teachings of Christ. Since it is Christ I listen TO, and follow.
Well, that's kind of the point I was making: believers believe based ON faith, alone, and looking for evidence is actually a sign that they don't "get it".
That doesn't make any sense to me. I don't believe on nothing. My faith is based on something... someONE... not on nothing, and not just on hope. I can hope for a million dollars but that doesn't mean I'm going to get it, lol.
Hence, they should believe in God DESPITE ALL evidence, which is kind of the acid test for a recalcitrant Christian who is not worth talking with; I'll ask them what possible evidence could be presented to convince them that the Bible is only the work of ancient clever men who made up a deity? If they say NONE, they aren't worth discussing, because they HAVE committed to ignoring ANY and ALL POSSIBLE EVIDENCE, so they're actually IMMUNE from reasoning and rationality. Their mind is snapped tightly-shut, so there's no point in talking.
You do get that I am not talking about the bible, that even this thread is not about the bible?
You understand also, that your explanation of mental disorders regarding hearing voices... are not the same thing as I have described, right?
HOWEVER, I'm HIGHLY DOUBTFUL that it would happen, since Christianity has developed the OPPOSITE of rational skepticism, refusing to examine claims on the basis of evidence. Instead, the Bible values "the faith of a child", which to ME is a code word for "looking for suckers who just feel off the turnip truck". The clarion call of "you can trust me, HONEST!" is the theme song of scammers and con-artists since the dawn of mankind (actually, isn't that the ENTIRE approach used by the serpent in order to trick Eve? So Jesus is asking us, "just trust me!" and we're supposed to NOT ask for proof? Once bitten, twice shy?).p
That is not what is meant by 'faith of a child'. I like the line from avatar to help explain this... "you cannot fill a cup that is already full."
For instance, speaking of myself... I don't believe what others say, unless/until I examine the evidence/hear it for myself. Even as a child. I mean, we are told to TEST the spirits (the inspired expressions)... to reject false christs... etc. Not just blindly believe. That's even written in black and white, and people don't see it.
(and for his apostles, and those who have heard Him since... the resurrection would have been some pretty good proof, imo, that Christ knew what He was talking about)
Yeah, the problem is you admit the Bible is tampered with, so how do you trust which advice is true?
Test it.
Against Christ, love, and at the least against what He is written to have said or done.
(and I don't think someone came in and rewrote everything or even necessarily knowingly/purposely did it... but that some things were not understood, and so mistranslated, or misapplied... so mishandled. Some of those can be understood just by looking up root words, etc, and understanding CHRIST, and what HE taught/did)
That only begs the question: how do you know it IS true? Again, you're susceptible to internal validation, since you aren't an unbiased independent observer who's able to determine IF the claim is true. I'm not saying it's impossible to formulate a testable verifiable way to test the validity of your voice, it's just that most believers actually ARE unwilling to do so, since it potentially robs them of something that protects them (as a defense mechanism). Usually they'll claim that the presence of a skeptic and doubters alters their voices capabilities (by interfering with their faith), and they blame it on that....
Becasue it has proven to be true?
I'm not speaking about internal validation at all.
For example, Christ tells someone something that IS true... that someone else also heard; or that you saw for yourself is true... because you looked it up, or it came to pass, or you followed the instructions you were given and they were correct... just as some small examples.
Again, that's the VERY DEFINITION of internal validation, which is another way of saying "blind faith". As you point out, faith is NOT transferrable, so you could be 100% SURE of something, yet STILL be wrong. It happens ALL the TIME, where people die believing they're right (eg "I didn't THINK the gun was loaded, so I cleaned it"), but it doesn't make it so.
For the record, it has nothing to do with me being right or me knowing something. I am just listening to the One who DOES know, and no one should listen to me over Him. Because who am I? What a person shares though, can be tested. It is what I do, if the spirit within me does not immediately bear witness to what has been shared... I test what is shared, and if it is not against Christ, love, or what is written, then I have no reason to attack it. I might have to set it aside, not having heard it myself... until I CAN or DO hear it myself, but if it is not against Christ and love, then what is the problem?
(he who is not against you is for you)
The problem is you're living amidst a group of those who similarly felt "moved by the Holy Spirit" in the past, and GENUINELY BELIEVED in their heart of hearts that they felt the love of Jesus, etc. We KNOW it wasn't really real, since many of us have gotten similar feelings and emotions via OTHER methods (eg sex, inspired by music composition/performance, reading/writing moving poetry, looking at the beauty in nature, watching a compelling story in a movie, etc, etc). Human emotions are pliable, and people SHOULD be inspired by SOMETHING, but they shouldn't misattribute such feelings to deities or beings since that's a waste of time.
I'm not living amongst a group like that.
And in order to accept all that the witnesses taught as truth; I felt like I had to put blinders on. I 'felt' those blinders coming down, and a 'cloud' descend over my head, in order to turn off my thinking so that I could accept them as the truth, including all those things that never made sense. THAT would have been blind faith. I remember that very moment, very clearly. I also had to twitzel my brain in order to accept some things too (like michael the archangel being jesus).
I don't' have to do that anymore, and I can ask all the questions I want, and I can learn all the things that are out there to learn - science or otherwise - and I can even say 'I don't know' as an answer, without that having to be the end of the world, lol. My faith is not based on a feeling, or on emotion, and it has been made sure in Christ.
What you're describing now sounds like an internal dialog, and not so much a "voice"; however, you STILL IMO need a better method of verifying "truths" aside from trusting an internal dialogue.
I have more than an internal dialogue, but I get that this is your opinion, and I have no problem with it or you.
It's hard to imagine that a voice hearer WOULDN'T be subconsciously influenced by reading the account of other voice hearers, since someone who DOESN'T hear voices would reasonably stop and think, "wait a minute: that's not normal" (just as most readers do when
encountering the story of a talking serpent, whereas someone who hallucinated such images wouldn't think twice about it, OR it would register with them as special: "you SEE! It happened to someone else, TOO!"). Point being, it's impossible for you to KNOW what it's
like to NOT hear a voice, just like its impossible to know what it IS like; the only means to bridge the experiential gap is via use of logic and reasoning.
But your point is flawed. Because I am/have been no different than anyone else who has/does not 'hear'. Else, reading those passages, I might have said, as you write... "look, it happened to someone else too".
So... I do know the difference.
I didn't even think it was possible that Christ could speak... until I learned otherwise. Then I started asking for ears TO hear. I WANTED to hear, and I WANTED the truth, no matter how unpleasant it might be for me (and the truth about ourselves is something that people often shy away from), and so I kept asking, full faith that I would receive, as Christ promised. Knock, and the door will be opened. But I had to have the faith to at least ask.
That doesn't mean Christ wasn't speaking... just that I wasn't always hearing Him. (or recognizing that I was being spoken to at all)
Again, you don't trust the Bible, so you're actually relying on your own "horribly flawed" (per the Bible) moral compass in order to determine a proper course of action; in fact, in order to know IF God's law even applies to your situation REQUIRES making a moral determination.
I don't trust the bible alone, no. But you are going to have to give me an example of what you're talking about here, because I'm not sure I am understanding you correctly, re moral compass; making a decision; what about God's law? Can you give me an example?
So you're actually in no different of a position from all the other humans living on the Planet. You're just adding another level of complexity that's unneeded accessory vestigial organ of morality, since it carries quite a burden over simply building your OWN moral
compass directly (by taking a course in ethics/philosophy, building your OWN brain power).
Learn from Christ; learn from scholars in ethics/philosophy, etc... both are examples of going to someone else to teach them, and going directly at that. I just prefer to learn from Christ, the Truth. You can build your 'brain power' either way, though, and my brain is not all that shabby ; ).
There is no burden; quite freeing actually.
I like to believe that increasing awareness and knowledge will improve the conditions for ALL humans TODAY, in the here and now; why wait for tomorrow to act on what IS known today?
I would like to believe that too... and at times it does. (sometimes it does the opposite... because people don't use their knowledge responsibly, but rather for power over others) Though I agree... if you can do something to help others today, then do it.
Peace to you,
tammy
-
tec
Hi Tec - I'd have thought it's only problematic if one wants to convince others that one's own revelation is the correct one and that conflicting revelations are wrong.
Could be, GromitSK. I think it might have to do at least as much with fear though ( of being wrong perhaps, or of the threat that many religions make on things like hell and punishment, etc )
Peace,
tammy
-
mP
TEC:
Why dont you start your own religion and share your knowledge, texts and ideas ? WHy are you so selfish, why dont you share ? -
tec
Why dont you start your own religion and share your knowledge, texts and ideas ? WHy are you so selfish, why dont you share ?
Well, a couple of reasons. One being that religion IS a snare and a racket. Religion is of men, faith is of the Spirit. (not that someone in religion does not belong to Christ... He calls to His people to come out of her, so there are obviously some of His who are IN her)
But Christ did not come to establish a new religion.
And the last thing that this world needs is another religion. How many people have done that, started a new denomination, in christianity, itself? The focus eventually, no matter how good initial intentions, becomes about the religion, its doctrines, teachings, leaders, etc... rather than on Christ: the ONLY one we should be listening to, and the only image of God we are given to look AT. And HE has NEVER directed me to try and start my own religion. Just the opposite.
I do, however, share as I am given (or we would not be having this discussion)... and point to Christ as the one that a person should look to for truth. I am to witness to Him. To Christ as the Word, Truth, Image of God, and Christ as the Life. Not to start a religion. Nor could I do so (start a religion), and still be listening to my Lord, as He calls for His people to come OUT of her.
No one should follow me... but rather follow Him.
Peace,
tammy
-
mP
Tammy:
Well, a couple of reasons. One being that religion IS a snare and a racket. Religion is of men, faith is of the Spirit. (not that someone in religion does not belong to Christ... He calls to His people to come out of her, so there are obviously some of His who are IN her)
But Christ did not come to establish a new religion.
And the last thing that this world needs is another religion. How many people have done that, started a new denomination, in christianity, itself? The focus eventually, no matter how good initial intentions, becomes about the religion, its doctrines, teachings, leaders, etc... rather than on Christ: the ONLY one we should be listening to, and the only image of God we are given to look AT. And HE has NEVER directed me to try and start my own religion. Just the opposite.
I do, however, share as I am given (or we would not be having this discussion)... and point to Christ as the one that a person should look to for truth. I am to witness to Him. To Christ as the Word, Truth, Image of God, and Christ as the Life. Not to start a religion. Nor could I do so (start a religion), and still be listening to my Lord, as He calls for His people to come OUT of her.
No one should follow me... but rather follow Him.
mP:
Call your knowledge what you wish. you can still share, you dont have to make an establishment like a formal church. What i meant by start your own religion was simply to share what you have. Im not suggesting you build cathedrals or basicallas. You should look up the meanings of those two words. Church also has an interesting etymology.
-
tec
Well, I am sharing, mP. Don't have to start a religion, or a church, to witness to Christ.
Peace,
tammy
-
mP
TEC:
Only in snippets. You can expect people to believe when you share small bits here and there.
-
adamah
Hi TEC,
You sound very familiar, Adamah, and I feel like I've had this particular discussion before, so I am not going to address all of what you have written (though I did get to most of it). But just the points that stand out to me.
Yeah, no worries, and I didn't mean for you to respond to EVERY point; I just wanted to offer a sketchy outline of the way a rationalist might approach the question of how the Torah evolved over 3,000 yrs.
How do you KNOW that it's the "same spirit"? You don't KNOW that. NO ONE does, or ever COULD know, since it's UNKNOWABLE.
I can know, by asking Christ. Anyone can. It is NOT unknowable.
Well, we're trapped in an infinite loop then, since you're only repeating YOUR unproven conclusion which you admit is unverified AND unverifiable, and not even transferrable to anyone else. I've offered that your personal experience is worthless to anyone BUT you, and you're responding that ANYONE can experience it to know too, if they only REALLY TRY. M'kay.
Here's where Cofty pops in to point out you're making an unverified claim which IS unverifiable, and I'd have to agree. It's pointless discussing it further if you don't see WHY your claim is about as useless as teats on a bull to anyone else BUT you (except to garner a bit of attention, and perhaps to act as if you're superior to everyone else, which is NOT exactly a new thing, eg the GB: we've ALL been there, done that, and the World is FULL of those claiming the gift of channeling the message of God/Jesus/Zeus/Ahura Mazda/Thor/etc).
NOW, it might be a different matter if you were able to offer a scientifically-valid method to VERIFY and PROVE your claim, but apparently even Jesus whispering in your ear is fresh out of ideas on how to accomplish THAT, and is thus unable to offer ANY PRACTICAL guidance on how you could PROVE his existence by DEMONSTRATING his effect on the Physical World. Heck, I'll become a Christian TODAY if he only gives a sign of his existence.
(BTW, Jesus refused to offer 'signs' after being pestered by crowds too often; the Bible strongly indicates he WAS a failed Jewish Messiah who suffered the fate of all protagonists in a Greek tragedy: death. The Bible offers the classical motif where the protagonist realizes the folly of their actions (hamartia), but only AFTER it's too late to do anything about it (anagnoris, defined as a tragic recognition or insight which explains why the character is in their current predicament, and has no choice but to accept their fate). The agonized cry of desparation uttered on the cross, "Father, why have you foresaken me?" comes to mind as his "What was I thinking, claiming to be a Jewish Messiah?!", a CLASSIC example of Greek anagnoris. It's also another example of Jesus violating Divine character, since it directly violates the concept of his having insight into the Father's Master Plan for Jesus to serve as the "perfect sacrifice" to redeem mankind from the sin of Adam. Instead, he seems out of the loop, as if surprised at his predicament?).
In fact, if you think about it, the very LACK of Jesus' ability to demonstrate his presence and capability to interact with Tammy actually serves as a STRIKE AGAINST Jesus' existence. If Jesus possesses the capability to do so, but chooses NOT to, then he's not omnibenevolent or merciful. If Jesus DOESN'T possess the capability to prove his existence through someone who claims to experience him, then he's not omnipotent.
Again, the point is that you experience an inner gut feeling, a hunch, a twitch, etc which are ALL KNOWN to be FALLIBLE, and if that's all you've got to supplement your blind faith, then you too meet the definition of possessing blind faith, alone, on which to base your beliefs (since inner feelings ARE SOLIDLY in the camp of blind faith, being unverifiable, untestable, and lacking falsifiability, all the traits needed to constitute actual valid EXTERNAL EVIDENCE).
Have you not noticed how the depiction of the spirit of God changes significantly from Genesis to Revelation? Have you not noticed how God starts out quite anthromorphic in Genesis, being limited in terms of His traits (eg non-omniscient, not all-powerful, but easily frustrated and hence with anger-management issues)? By the time you get to later OT scribes, and by the God depicted by Jesus, Jehovah got omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
Did you just ignore the evolution in his behavior, or do you rationalize it away with defense mechanisms and post-hoc rationalizations ("lying scribes", or anything that seems fishy gets the boot and ignored)? That's a moral determination, using your "flawed" internal moral compass.
You actually answer your own questions when you speak about tampering and translation issues and such to various writings... so how would 'lying scribes' be a defense mechanism for me... but an actual explanation for you?
Because "lying scribes" SUPPORTS my hypothesis that the Bible shows evidence of change over time, a characteristic of the work of men; change over time is not consistent with a "perfect unchangable" God who issues ABSOLUTE standards of morality.
In comparison, you point to "lying scribes" as a DEFENSE to explain why you feel entitled to cherry-pick scriptures from a Divinely-inspired book at will, to explain away the discrepancies. (We're not arguing from the same position, hence we're going to use the same evidence differently.)
Well, that's kind of the point I was making: believers believe based ON faith, alone, and looking for evidence is actually a sign that they don't "get it".
That doesn't make any sense to me. I don't believe on nothing. My faith is based on something... someONE... not on nothing, and not just on hope. I can hope for a million dollars but that doesn't mean I'm going to get it, lol.
Then you likely don't get it, either? You're arguing AGAINST the worthiness of faith, now?
Read my post on the last page, where I explained my understanding that Christians and skeptics are sitting on OPPOSITE sides of the FAITH teeter-totter: per the Bible, the true Christian believes in Jesus DESPITE a COMPLETE lack of supportive evidence to bolster their belief, relying exclusive on faith; the skeptic DEMANDS sufficient visible evidence in order to accept a belief in Jesus, so they don't REQUIRE FAITH, but require EVIDENCE.
That's why I said that Christian faith THRIVES in the ABSENSE of evidence, and even should grow STRONGER upon exposure to counter-evidence! That's what makes JWs so dogmatic, for one: they REFUSE to examine ANY evidence which threatens their faith (AKA Christian defense mechanism).
This is not Christianity per Adamah: I offered scriptures, citing 2nd Cor 5:7 ("For we walk by FAITH, not sight") and Romans 8:24 ("For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.")
I talked about the various scriptures which stress the importance of using a lack of visible evidence as an OPPORTUNITY to BUILD one's blind faith; presumably examining counter-evidence is to be used as an OPPORTUNITY to STRENGTHEN it even more!
You certainly must be aware of the need to build one's faith by testing by fire, etc. It's a standard teaching of Christianity, in keeping with Hebrews 11:1 definition of faith ("things hoped for, evidence not beheld", AKA invisible evidence, which IS actually NOT evidence, since it's invisible, i.e. not available for visible examination). Faith IS invisible evidence, AKA internal beliefs or feelings which cannot be explained rationally, and hold one to a decision DESPITE rational examination of the evidence.
So AGAIN, you're claiming as 'evidence' or 'proof' an experience which is actually blind faith (internal validation). Does not the Bible ENCOURAGE you TOO to protect and build your faith, NOT by seeking ANY evidence to justify your beliefs? If you actually believe it, why would you counteract the Bible's admonishment by claiming your personal experience as supportive EVIDENCE? Seems to me you'd be DOWNPLAYING it, as it truly IS blind faith.
I mean, is it ME, the atheist, who just doesn't get it, or am missing something about how faith is supposed to work for Christians?
You understand also, that your explanation of mental disorders regarding hearing voices... are not the same thing as I have described, right?
Yeah, and I'm not trying to diagnose you; as I said, the symptomology of voice hearers is variable, and runs the full spectrum from emotions which seem coming from an external source, to multiple voices which communicate in fully-formed sentences. The example video I posted was the experience of someone who was diagnosed with BPD, who experienced multiple voices, some of which were menacing. YMMV, and that's the point: many who hear voices perceive them as benign or even helpful, and they can learn to control them.
There's voice hearing forums where those who experience them can interact with others to share/compare their experiences, which helps to alleviate their sometimes-disconcerting nature (and I'd find it VERY DISCOMFORTING to experience the voices shared in the video; it seems very disruptive, but then it's impossible to know what it would be like until it happened, I suppose).
Becasue it has proven to be true?
I'm not speaking about internal validation at all.
As much as you insist otherwise, YES, you are. If you are thinking and reasoning inside your OWN head, you are internally-validating, by definition. Unless you admit to suffering multiple personality disorder (although that's ALSO a form of internal validation, as well)?
For example, Christ tells someone something that IS true... that someone else also heard; or that you saw for yourself is true... because you looked it up, or it came to pass, or you followed the instructions you were given and they were correct... just as some small examples.
That's a great idea, then.
Perhaps you can offer ONE SPECIFIC CONCRETE EXAMPLE of how Jesus has directly influenced you, or "where something came to pass". Give us your BEST example.
I didn't even think it was possible that Christ could speak... until I learned otherwise. Then I started asking for ears TO hear. I WANTED to hear, and I WANTED the truth, no matter how unpleasant it might be for me (and the truth about ourselves is something that people often shy away from), and so I kept asking, full faith that I would receive, as Christ promised. Knock, and the door will be opened. But I had to have the faith to at least ask.
Why am I reminded of the decision JWs make to decide to partake as an anointed member? Same diff, from here, as a way to claim special status within the KH which is utterly unprovable to others, since it's also based on "being moved by the spirit" (and actually more indicative of some unmet need in their lives which they may not even be aware of).
As a non-believer, my index of suspicion is rather high for such Earthbound silliness, right off the bat.
I don't trust the bible alone, no. But you are going to have to give me an example of what you're talking about here, because I'm not sure I am understanding you correctly, re moral compass; making a decision; what about God's law? Can you give me an example?
JWs speak of using one's internal moral compass to make decisions on 'conscience' matters (i.e. matters which aren't determined by expression of God's Divine Will). The Bible-trained conscience is sharpened by Bible study; it is fueled by wisdom. Christians typically claim how "horribly flawed" their decision-making skills are, even being unable to direct their own footsteps on their own without God's direction.
Learn from Christ; learn from scholars in ethics/philosophy, etc... both are examples of going to someone else to teach them, and going directly at that. I just prefer to learn from Christ, the Truth. You can build your 'brain power' either way, though, and my brain is not all that shabby ; ).
The MAIN DIFFERENCE is Jesus claims to KNOW ABSOLUTE TRUTHS, obviously based on Divine Inspiration. Philosophers claim no such superiority, and don't rely on a fraudulent appeal to Divine Authority to win their arguments. They allow the audience to use their own powers of rationality to decide, and don't demand strict obedience to the Ultimate Authority based on nothing but gut feelings (which is fear, mostly, afraid of eternal punishment in Hell).
The problem is most Christians don't BEGIN to ask the tough ethical and moral questions that need to be asked, since Christians are often self-centered (deep down), and often waste time discussing how unimportant they are (which belies their overblown egos, since Jesus demanded that they put on the humble act, in order to be saved) and don't get around to actually discussing anything important like how to solve the World's immediate problems! Sigh....
Adam