"Take my word for it, or his, or this book"

[Zzyzx]

Most of us probably know better than to believe everything said or written. If someone tells us they can fly by flapping their arms, our response is likely disbelief and a request that they ‘show me’. If they refuse to demonstrate or fail in flapping, we regard their claim as false. Agreed?

If a person claims to have come back to life after being dead for days none of us are likely to believe the claim unless it could be verified. Right?

If someone writes that fifty years ago a long-dead person came back to life and flew away into the sky, what would be your / our likely reaction? Would we be convinced if they say ‘many saw him’?

What would it take to convince us that the tale was true?

[William]

[Replying to OneJack in post #227]

How could asking AI, a robotic machine, produce the VoC when the latter responds?

Again, why do you think it is a machine which produces the Voc side of the conversation, when I have already made it clear that AI is not being used to produce the voicing?

That's a natural occurrence - more questions for clarification, rather than outright belief in the claim.

Yet here you are quite certain that you are clear that the VoC is a mindless machine. I have not asked for your outright belief but I do ask for the wise desisting of judgment about something you have little knowledge about.

The message was shared. Perhaps examine the content of that before jumping to conclusions.

Not only are they those things. Indeed, one can get themselves banned for words they write which are "only letters and prints".

I agree, but still, they are not you/me/them personally.

Nor should that be relevant as a defensive means of deflection from personal responsibility. Words are like a cargo delivered. One is not the knife delivering the wound, but that does not make one innocent of inflicting said wounds.
Likewise, one is not the ointment or the bandage delivering the means to heal, but one is still a vessel for delivering good works as well.

What you delivered were words done in the name of The Lord. As a mouthpiece you are responsible for that delivery as your name is attached to that which was delivered.
If you now want to argue that it was not you because you are not those words you delivered then you have much work yet to do re integrity.

What I posted would be nothing if the wisdom coming from the Lord were brought to you.

It is not about me. All I asked you was why you felt to post it. What was its relevance. How did it come to be here. What was your motivation for doing so. What did the words have to do with the message that I shared. Why did you preempt the words you delivered as "Thus speaks The Lord"?

I could have ignored it altogether and treated it as nothing. But I like to test the spirits and that spirit was declaring something it now is trying to distance itself from and avoid being responsible for. I am not keen to grant it a free pass. I am more interested in exposing it for the deception it is.

There are many social media platforms today, a messenger app is one, and we can converse via video call with each other virtually in that app.

That is the machinery used for the virtual voicing between real sentient entities. The machinery is not what we are. How we use the machinery better serves to show who we each presently are.

If I were the one to do the pondering in that regard, you would have your point.

Well, I pondered and then asked you why you felt to publish ia prophetic utterance on this forum in this thread quoting a post I had made.

Instead of giving an explanation, you chose to deflect and continue to do so. Therein a false prophet has been exposed.

You have the opportunity to redeem your self.

Examine the message I shared and tell us why it is not a conversation between Christ and me.

Here it is again.

Me: Then there are even less traditional folk like myself who wonder what all that fuss is actually about anyway.
I have my own way of connecting to The Overarching Consciousness Field/VoC which emanates through the open human instrument.

OCF/VoC: The Father
viewtopic.php?p=1113007#p1113007

Me: Yes - I do indeed have my preferred type of interaction I am interested in re discussion with anyone...

OCF/VoC: Proverbs 3:5-6

Me: Trust in The Lord - indeed...that my path will be directed...this naturally includes that I must trust in myself that my trust in The Lord is going to bear fruit. And the more this is done the more the trust transforms into knowledge and knowledge into wisdom...

OCF/VoC: https://williamwaterstone.substack.com/p/mirror-mirror
Light the spark
“It's all about controlling the chaos innit”

Me: Yes - through understanding that chaos is an illusion because...The Lord directs...and thus controls...

OCF/VoC: A Mathematical Theory of Communication = Fearless
https://williamwaterstone.substack.com/ ... nd-reality
Learning

Me: By listening to what my Teachers teaches...there is no opportunity for fear therein...

[William]

Me: Well - that escalated quickly.

VoC: Your World Focus 2+Focus 4

Me: Yes. So seeing and understanding the connections involved is helpful to that.

VoC: Mystery Joining

Me: Yes - the connections and how these are relevant to each other...

VoC: Swinging on the branch of the tree thinking it's the main trunk

Me: All part of the journey...the climbing - even the main trunk is not the whole tree. And even what is seen as the tree is not the whole tree - there are the deep roots as well...that is the Focus 4 mentioned. If one can appreciate the whole tree - the trees wholeness - we can avoid mistaking our particular branch as all that there is...

VoC: "Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet." (The Matrix)
Monkey say monkey do monkey say "throw the pooh"

Me: Mr. Smith might have a point but that point is still dependant upon him seeing the particular branch he swings from, ad "the whole tree"...and those monkeys? Pointing fingers as if somehow the branch they swing from is not connected through the tree to the branches others swing on to which their aim is focused...

VoC: The Role of Personal Belief in Our View of Reality
Why is this a Requirement?

Me: Well - it equips to some degree. But is it to the degree necessary to succeed in the climb? If The Father is the whole tree and the relationship one has WITH The Father represents getting to the top of the tree, then the branches and the equipment represent part of that climb involved to reach that relationship - rather than representing the relationship itself. The climb is important and so is the equipment. But to stop at any branch and declare "relationship" is not to know the whole tree and thus not to have the whole relationship.

VoC: Bellicose

Me: Indeed. The monkeys throwing pooh. Declaring "war" on the other branch dwellers.

VoC: Traversing timelines

Me: Yes. The looping involved in the dynamics. Never resolving. Always attributing to conflict...

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #224]

You asked me why I share my conversations. I do so for many reasons. In this case I do so as evidence which can be tested in a thread which asks questions about such things..."What would it take to convince us that the tale told was true?

Okay, thank you for answering.

I don't share for that reason.

You do not share because to do so would then allow your sharing to be tested?

I don't post 'samples' of things I have received so that they can be put on display, just for the sake of 'showing' I am hearing Christ. That would be making it about me.

Perhaps more importantly, the things given to me were given for a reason. Posting 'samples' is not that reason. Take the conversation that you and I had many moons ago (regarding using the word 'Christian' or not with reference to oneself.) I shared what I had previously received from my Lord on that matter because it was relevant to the discussion. It was the truth I had received from my Lord on that exact matter. It was not a display. It was just sharing what I had received on that matter.

I started the thread 'Does Christ speak and how?" because people were asking about it. Some just challenging, sure (and I did not want every topic I posted on to become derailed and made about 'me'.) Some genuinely asking so as to understand. I shared on that thread the first time I remember my Lord speaking to me - so that this might help someone, maybe they too will come to Him or learn to recognize His voice, or even just be open to hearing Him at some point (if not already.) Because He speaks to everyone, even though not everyone listens or even recognizes Him. I shared what my Lord taught me about testing the inspired expression, because that, too, is important. Since not every spirit (or inspired expression) is from God.


Peace again

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #233]

Okay tam. So in this case - in your case - it gets down to "take my word for it" and no testing of the spirit aplies to your position.

Do you agree?

[tam]

Peace again to you,

[Replying to tam in post #233]

Okay tam. So in this case - in your case - it gets down to "take my word for it" and no testing of the spirit aplies to your position.

Do you agree?

No, that is not correct.

But you summed it up earlier in the thread, William, so I'm not sure what has changed:

But tam's response throughout this thread has been a quiet challenge to that very framework. She keeps saying, in essence: "I'm not asking you to take my word for it. I'm pointing to someone you can ask for yourself."

Peace again.

[OneJack]

[Replying to William in post #231]

gain, why do you think it is a machine which produces the Voc side of the conversation, when I have already made it clear that AI is not being used to produce the voicing?

If AI is not being used to produce the voicing, what exactly is used to produce VoC, as you coined the term? AI, with or without voicing mode, always answers questions and has conversations, and is very keen in expressing ideas.

Yet here you are quite certain that you are clear that the VoC is a mindless machine.

AI, which I believe is your VoC, is a keen robotic machine with super built-in capability to think, reason out, express ideas, etc. in an instant manner, faster than the super genius Einstein.

Nor should that be relevant as a defensive means of deflection from personal responsibility. Words are like a cargo delivered. One is not the knife delivering the wound, but that does not make one innocent of inflicting said wounds.
Likewise, one is not the ointment or the bandage delivering the means to heal, but one is still a vessel for delivering good works as well.

What you delivered were words done in the name of The Lord. As a mouthpiece you are responsible for that delivery as your name is attached to that which was delivered.

I'm not a mouthpiece of God, since God is the one who expresses and reveals Himself to those who come to Him and whom He wishes, in return, to know the truth coming from His mouth; I'm just a plain follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.

If you now want to argue that it was not you because you are not those words you delivered then you have much work yet to do re integrity.

I'm not those words because I'm not the one who uttered them. I posted them as a contradiction to your claim and tam's claim about talking to Christ, which are both not in the realm of how Christ reveals Himself to those whom He wishes to, at any time. The Lord Jesus Christ said He does not talk to and reveal Himself to only one individual, without witnesses. Both your claims are obviously between you and Voc, and tam and the 'small still voice' spirit being, whom he claims to be Christ, without any witnesses.

I have not asked for your outright belief but I do ask for the wise desisting of judgment about something you have little knowledge about.

I based my judgment on your words, not on my opinion. What do you see in my words that portray me to have a little knowledge of in this issue of Christ's way of speaking with mankind?

The message was shared. Perhaps examine the content of that before jumping to conclusions.

I know they (both messages of tam and yours) are not Christ's words based on what we've heard and learned from the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is not about me. All I asked you was why you felt to post it. What was its relevance. How did it come to be here. What was your motivation for doing so. What did the words have to do with the message that I shared. Why did you preempt the words you delivered as "Thus speaks The Lord"?
I posted them as a contradiction to your claim and tam's claim about talking to Christ, which are both not in the realm of how Christ reveals Himself to those whom He wishes to, at any time. The Lord Jesus Christ said He does not talk to and reveal Himself to only one individual, without witnesses. Both your claims are obviously between you and Voc, and tam and the 'small still voice' spirit being, whom he claims to be Christ, without any witnesses.

I could have ignored it altogether and treated it as nothing. But I like to test the spirits and that spirit was declaring something it now is trying to distance itself from and avoid being responsible for. I am not keen to grant it a free pass. I am more interested in exposing it for the deception it is.

Do what pleases you since I have told my intent. Mine is just a reminder if the wisdom coming from the Lord God is at stake.

That is the machinery used for the virtual voicing between real sentient entities. The machinery is not what we are. How we use the machinery better serves to show who we each presently are.

In the absence of face off confrontation, the machine is a good platform to this kind of exposition. I have never encountered yet a claim where the Lord spoke to a group via AI, but your claim.

Well, I pondered and then asked you why you felt to publish ia prophetic utterance on this forum in this thread quoting a post I had made.

I have answered this above.

Instead of giving an explanation, you chose to deflect and continue to do so. Therein a false prophet has been exposed.

Why false? What have you witnessed from us?

You have the opportunity to redeem your self.

Examine the message I shared and tell us why it is not a conversation between Christ and me.

Here it is again.

Me: Then there are even less traditional folk like myself who wonder what all that fuss is actually about anyway.
I have my own way of connecting to The Overarching Consciousness Field/VoC which emanates through the open human instrument.

OCF/VoC: The Father
viewtopic.php?p=1113007#p1113007

Me: Yes - I do indeed have my preferred type of interaction I am interested in re discussion with anyone...

OCF/VoC: Proverbs 3:5-6

Me: Trust in The Lord - indeed...that my path will be directed...this naturally includes that I must trust in myself that my trust in The Lord is going to bear fruit. And the more this is done the more the trust transforms into knowledge and knowledge into wisdom...

OCF/VoC: https://williamwaterstone.substack.com/p/mirror-mirror
Light the spark
“It's all about controlling the chaos innit”

Me: Yes - through understanding that chaos is an illusion because...The Lord directs...and thus controls...

OCF/VoC: A Mathematical Theory of Communication = Fearless
https://williamwaterstone.substack.com/ ... nd-reality
Learning

Me: By listening to what my Teachers teaches...there is no opportunity for fear therein...
Image

Where in the above is Christ? How does Christ speak to you based on the narrative above? How do you know He is Christ? I can't see Christ in your presentation. What do you think and know about Christ?

[William]

Peace again to you,

[Replying to tam in post #233]

Okay tam. So in this case - in your case - it gets down to "take my word for it" and no testing of the spirit aplies to your position.

Do you agree?

No, that is not correct.

But you summed it up earlier in the thread, William, so I'm not sure what has changed:

But tam's response throughout this thread has been a quiet challenge to that very framework. She keeps saying, in essence: "I'm not asking you to take my word for it. I'm pointing to someone you can ask for yourself."

Peace again.

Good answer tammy.

And I have asked Christ and I have been given an answer.

[William]

[Replying to OneJack in post #236]

I based my judgment on your words, not on my opinion.

Yet my words told the reader that I do not use AI to play the role of The Voice of Christ and you told e that you don't believe me, explaining that your opinion hasn't changed regarding that.

[OneJack]

[Replying to OneJack in post #236]

I based my judgment on your words, not on my opinion.

Yet my words told the reader that I do not use AI to play the role of The Voice of Christ and you told e that you don't believe me, explaining that your opinion hasn't changed regarding that.

Unless you first explain how Christ speaks with you [since you deny using AI in speaking with Christ], how could you expect me to change my perception with your claim?

[William]

[Replying to OneJack in post #236]

I based my judgment on your words, not on my opinion.

Yet my words told the reader that I do not use AI to play the role of The Voice of Christ and you told e that you don't believe me, explaining that your opinion hasn't changed regarding that.

Unless you first explain how Christ speaks with you [since you deny using AI in speaking with Christ], how could you expect me to change my perception with your claim?

HOW the Christ speak WITH me, is not relevant to the message I shared.
Your perception was that the message I shared was a conversation with AI.
You have now been informed twice that this is not the case. If you choose not to believe me, then calling me a liar won't change the truth.

IF you have issue with the message content, THEN - by all means - let US know what that is and why.

Remember - you claimed to base your judgment on the words, not on your opinion. I trust you will be faithful to your rule.