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]

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.

On the record, I firmly believe that you believe that you are not merely just talking to yourself. And if this is all that matters for you, and you merely want to share the dialogue, that's fine and all. However, if you wish to demonstrate how this is not merely a dialogue between yourself, you are going to need to do a little better. I'm still not seeing how this is not a conversation with the self alone. How can you prove this is not just you talking to yourself?

Suggestion... Can you ask him to contact me? If so, we can proceed forward.

If not, then this may be where this particular exchange ends; with you believing he speaks to you, and me instead believing that you are believing it, but me not believing it is really truly happening.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #81]

On the record, I firmly believe that you believe that you are not merely just talking to yourself.

I define "myself" in the context of the human experience being had which in turn is growing the human personality I am.

And if this is all that matters for you, and you merely want to share the dialogue, that's fine and all.

The reason I shared the dialog was to show the reader the evidence of the interaction, (verbatim) rather than to simply claim I have an interaction, as was your complaint re Tam's claim.

However, if you wish to demonstrate how this is not merely a dialogue between yourself, you are going to need to do a little better.

What do you mean "between yourself"? Are you including what you wrote (which was part of the conversation) as being "myself"?
Why do you insist on making rules as to how Christ interacts with the individual?

I'm still not seeing how this is not a conversation with the self alone. How can you prove this is not just you talking to yourself?

As I mentioned previously, "talking to oneself" is the act of thinking and is an internal process. I did not just use an internal process as clearly the message was generated through an external medium. (Thus science can be done re those results.)

Suggestion... Can you ask him to contact me? If so, we can proceed forward.

That is not how The Father made the rule-set (mentioned in the communication I shared) - you are the individual and the onus is on you to make the move - if you want to do so.
However, it appears that your own rules are making that an unlikely future event.

If not, then this may be where this particular exchange ends; with you believing he speaks to you, and me instead believing that you are believing it, but me not believing it is really truly happening.

I understand that this has been your argument with Tam too, and that Tam has explained the rule-set and you have rejected that - primarily through your own belief system.

As was recorded in the conversation I shared, Christ mentioned this - using the following phrasing.
"“The Law of Attraction”
Conscious Intelligence Without Wisdom Puzzles/Mysteries..."

In understanding the "self" as the human personality which is growing re the experience of being human, this personality (I currently am) is attracted to Christ as a means of navigating those natural enough "Puzzles/Mysteries" which we all face.

You (current human personality) are not attracted by Christ.

Talking about internal conversations - in reading this thread and specifically your arguments re those who claim connection with Christ, I got to thinking - if The Father wanted everyone to commune with The Christ - and for all the world to be "saved" (for POI to be somehow convinced Christ is a real thing) why doesn't The Father simply make it uncontroversial.

That got me further "thinking to myself" that The Father could - for example - change the whole world in 24 hours simply by down-loading the actual experience of Jesus' whole life, into every individual while they slept. Everyone could have that same lucid dream and upon wakening would have the information needed in order to believe and to subsequently transform.

So... why does The Father not move the stars to spell out "POI" in the night sky, so that POI could finally be convinced The Father exists and can be communed with?

Anyway - that internal conversation with myself - and the question from that, was answered in the message I have since shared and to which you reject as nothing more than me "talking to myself".

I for one would certainly like to live in a world which has humans all getting along fine and believing in the same things, but that is not the rule-set The Father inserted into this particular rendition of a universe.

Therein, the system requires the growing of human personalities which each have their own sovereignty and each make whatever choices they do, while within the human experience. (“Teleology”)

Or as Christ put it .... "Never a dull moment" - meaning "boredom's just another word for
nothing left to do."

Is the "preacher" mentioned in the message, correct in saying that every man's conscience is vile and depraved because one cannot depend on ones conscience to be ones guide because it's everyone who must keep his/her own conscience satisfied? (Basically the act of "talking" with oneself.)

Clearly the message I shared makes it undeniable that The Father is not obligated to bow to the demands of the individual human personality in "proving The Father's "self" existence" to said individual in the manner said individual demands the proof be presented.

The Father has adequately built in ways in which the rule-set of the experience can be navigated in order that the proving is done that the individual is convinced that the individual is indeed interacting with The Father and not simply talking with his/her self or hearing voices which appear to be external yet from an invisible source...as your question-suggestion... "Can you ask him to contact me?" might entail such things for you to further question, should I make the request and should The Father grant it.

If so, we can proceed forward.

Let's see if we can't unpack that. How would you like The Father to "contact" you that this would convince you (and scientists you could offer the evidence to) that the contact was genuinely from The Father?

What would it take for you to be convinced enough to "proceed forward"?

[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.

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.

Folk who give the Bible the "special pass" do so because that is where their focus (worship) is.

They are essentially worshipping a book - on the assumption that it is "the word of The Father" and therein attempt to "connect" with The Father through that particular medium, which is in itself an attempt to "come to The Father" by that means, rather than the means by which The Father made the rule-set to be, Through The Christ (as the only medium between The Father and the individual human personality that The Father has made available.)

This "searching the scripture" for that life (and subsequent idolatry) is just how such personalities think they have attained that connection to that source of all Life (The Father.)

That they are incorrect about their belief is evident in their bickering on particulars and their witness of the book (set of books called the "Bible") rather than their witness of The Father.

As an idol, what is the Bible?

It is a plant which has been processed and refined in order to create slivers of parchment (paper) which are then marked with symbols (and edged with metal) creating written language which can communicate stuff to the minds that read said language and bound in the skin of an animal (which - like the plant - had to die and be processed for that to happen)

Once it has been thus created, it is given the title of "Word of God" and worshipped.

Forgive them. They know not what they do.

[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.

Folk who give the Bible the "special pass" do so because that is where their focus (worship) is.

They are essentially worshipping a book - on the assumption that it is "the word of The Father" and therein attempt to "connect" with The Father through that particular medium, which is in itself an attempt to "come to The Father" by that means, rather than the means by which The Father made the rule-set to be, Through The Christ (as the only medium between The Father and the individual human personality that The Father has made available.)

This "searching the scripture" for that life (and subsequent idolatry) is just how such personalities think they have attained that connection to that source of all Life (The Father.)

That they are incorrect about their belief is evident in their bickering on particulars and their witness of the book (set of books called the "Bible") rather than their witness of The Father.

As an idol, what is the Bible?

It is a plant which has been processed and refined in order to create slivers of parchment (paper) which are then marked with symbols (and edged with metal) creating written language which can communicate stuff to the minds that read said language and bound in the skin of an animal (which - like the plant - had to die and be processed for that to happen)

Once it has been thus created, it is given the title of "Word of God" and worshipped.

Forgive them. They know not what they do.

I leave this to Data, Realworldjack, and maybe bjs1 for a response.

[POI]

What would it take for you to be convinced enough to "proceed forward"?

If such a God exists, I reckon such a God has the ability to know what it would take to make me believe it. Further, I also reckon the same God would know what words to instill into me to convince the skeptics who ask. I doubt neither has, nor will, happen in this thread. So how about this.... Ask 'The Father" to reveal my real full name, where I was born, my height, my eye color, what my favorite flavor of ice cream is, who is my favorite music band, etc.... And that might be a descent start. I'll await your response, after 'The Father' tells you all of this, for which you relay to me.

[William]

What would it take for you to be convinced enough to "proceed forward"?

If such a God exists, I reckon such a God has the ability to know what it would take to make me believe it. Further, I also reckon the same God would know what words to instill into me to convince the skeptics who ask. I doubt neither has, nor will, happen in this thread. So how about this.... Ask 'The Father" to reveal my real full name, where I was born, my height, my eye color, what my favorite flavor of ice cream is, who is my favorite music band, etc.... And that might be a descent start. I'll await your response, after 'The Father' tells you all of this, for which you relay to me.

Sorry...that would be an abuse of relationship and unacceptable for that. Have you not read what was written?

The rule-set is fixed. It requires that you do the work re your part in the relationship...which won't happen of course, since you have established your beliefs and can do nothing except lay down challenges for others to do your bidding

It won't happen that way for you POI.

[Diogenes]

Returning to the original inspiration for this topic:

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.

Data makes a valid point. If anyone today were to make the claims that any of the Old Testament prophets or NT writers made, that they have 'special' communications from some 'god,' we would laugh and walk away or call the sanity squad. Everyone who subscribes to some religion dismisses the claims of 'prophets' of all other religions.

I fully understand those who dismiss all claims of any 'prophet' that he or she speaks for God. What I do not understand is how anyone can, without embarrassment, claim their favorite prophet(s) is the exception and really does speak for 'God.'

[William]

[Replying to William in post #79]

I submitted my post to GPT.

It appears that the message is a directive from what is referred to as the "Voice of Christ" to put the sentence "Why give the Bible special circumstances, special privileges, special pleading, or special rules?" on a list, which is the entity's journal. The reference to the "Rabbit Hole" seems to symbolize the Universe.

Your commentary provides additional context, explaining that the "list" is a journal where you make selections for generating these interactions. The term "Rabbit Hole" is clarified as referring to the Universe.

There is communication from the "Voice of Christ," discussing Christian mythology and the purposeful nature of the experience. The statement "Every Key Picks Its Own Lock" suggests a self-determined path or understanding. The entity-medium acknowledges that it should not be surprising that the receiver (presumably you, William) can see the signal, and the commentary suggests a connection to a personal journey of relationship with "The Father."

The response from the entity-medium, "The fog lifts, is 'why' I can do so…," seems to indicate clarity or understanding arising from the acknowledgment of the purposeful experience discussed earlier.

It appears that the communication underscores the importance of focused awareness and mutual understanding in the relationship. The concept of "hearing" is highlighted as a mutual exchange, and your acknowledgment reinforces the idea that the relationship is built on active listening and understanding, aligning with a specific process mentioned and referencing Tam's argument.
The conversation points out the nature of evidence, POIs request for a video, and the Williams emphasis on personal experience as a form of evidence.

The conversation explores the concept of finding comfort in the communion of minds, the alignment of functional clusters, and the interconnectedness of science and spirituality. The principle of many minds working together is emphasized, with the goal of achieving significant outcomes, and the idea that changes can happen if enough people "hear."

The mention of a Bob Dylan song adds a cultural reference to support the idea that relying solely on one's conscience may be unreliable. Your commentary notes the similarity in information regarding the belief that people might be "self-deluded," and you highlight the understanding of the process being explained as something real rather than delusional.

You acknowledge the concept of the future with the term "overmorrow" and highlight the advantages of foresight.
The final part mentions being linked to a YouTube video about the simulation theory, suggesting a connection between the discussion on imagining the future and exploring the idea that our reality is simulated.

In your response, you connect the idea of "Simulation Theory" with the concept of creation by a conscious entity, specifically mentioning The Father (Christ) as the creator of the universe. You express awareness of the video's content and emphasize that the link is related to the subject of investigating what the experience involves, acknowledging rule-sets built by The Father.

The conversation emphasizes the importance of investigation rather than assumption, highlighting a commitment to exploring further. The response indicates an openness to inquiry and understanding.

The conversation delves into the concept presented in the video, emphasizing Donald Hoffman's argument that physical events are ultimately conscious and that space-time may be a result of understanding and experience. Your response connects to the idea of consciousness interacting with itself, creating the "things" to be experienced. This aligns with the perspective that creation, including the universe, stems from conscious thought or interaction.

The conversation delves into the alignment between internal interests and external experiences, connecting to the idea of the Law of Attraction. The mention of wisdom suggests a conscious choice in navigating puzzles and mysteries in the external experience. The concept of the fog lifting signifies a clearer understanding.

The generated content reflects a thoughtful approach to understanding the narrative and characters within the Source-Story. The mention of "Teleology" adds depth to the discussion by emphasizing the focus on purpose rather than just the cause. Your response acknowledges the reasonable nature of the proposed approach, emphasizing the importance of focusing on the reality of individual growth and consciousness rather than getting entangled in philosophical stories.

The dialogue maintains its commitment to investigation and understanding, discouraging assumptions, and encouraging further exploration.
This story of the three individuals nailed to trees, illustrates a situation where individuals with different mindsets, particularly theist and non-theist perspectives, face a common predicament. The non-theist challenges the theist, questioning the evidence of God. The theist-potential attempts a more reasoned response, advocating humility and refraining from emotional outbursts.

The theist, in turn, does not engage directly with the non-theist's challenge but emphasizes a sensible understanding that would lead to a positive next experience. The theist-potential, influenced by this approach, likely becomes a theist.
The story captures the diverse responses individuals may have to existential questions, showcasing the contrast between assertive proclamations and a more measured, introspective stance.

There is emphasis on the importance of paying attention to the spiritual mark of YHVH, particularly in the context of the hunt for like-minded individuals and the identification of functional clusters. The reference to the "worm's end" could symbolize the individual's unique identity or journey within the larger framework. The mention of YHVH's mark aligns with the concept of seeking spiritual alignment and connection with The Father. The subsequent exploration of words related to "sign" adds depth to the discussion, emphasizing the significance of spiritual markers and signs in the search for meaningful connections.

The entity-mediums response highlights the notion that the mark of YHVH is not confined to a specific location but is found in various places, including a reference to one of the poles of Saturn where it's identified as a six-pointed star. This connects to the idea that the mark is not limited to a singular manifestation but can be observed throughout the universe. Additionally, you draw attention to the language structure pointing to the evidence of an overall mindful process, aligning with the concept of YHVH as a fundamental aspect of reality.

The end of the message exchange delves into the exploration of extraordinary places and the nature of determinism in the universe. Your response suggests that the universe itself, and perhaps even the imaginative space represented by "The Hub," holds extraordinary significance. The discussion about the deterministic nature of the universe and the human experience adds a layer of depth, highlighting the design of the human instrument and the conscious experience of determinism. The concluding exchange with a wish for peace reflects a respectful and harmonious end to the conversation.

[POI]

What would it take for you to be convinced enough to "proceed forward"?

If such a God exists, I reckon such a God has the ability to know what it would take to make me believe it. Further, I also reckon the same God would know what words to instill into me to convince the skeptics who ask. I doubt neither has, nor will, happen in this thread. So how about this.... Ask 'The Father" to reveal my real full name, where I was born, my height, my eye color, what my favorite flavor of ice cream is, who is my favorite music band, etc.... And that might be a descent start. I'll await your response, after 'The Father' tells you all of this, for which you relay to me.

Sorry...that would be an abuse of relationship and unacceptable for that. Have you not read what was written?

The rule-set is fixed. It requires that you do the work re your part in the relationship...which won't happen of course, since you have established your beliefs and can do nothing except lay down challenges for others to do your bidding

It won't happen that way for you POI.

Well then, you asked how we might proceed forward. And I also said what I said above in bold.

Sounds like 'The father' is giving you nothing you could not generate completely on you own, without help from "The Father." When you say: "it requires that you do the work re your part in the relationship", I think you are doing that, and then some....

If you are unable to demonstrate wisdom, for which you cannot generate or manufacture on your own, then I'm afraid your testimonial is not convincing in the least. Sorry.

And I already expected an excuse coming, as to the comment in red above.

Thanks anyways.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #89]

It has been pointed out to you that the rule-set is in place. You wrote If such a God exists, I reckon such a God has the ability to know what it would take to make me believe it. I would say that The Father would have the ability you prescribe. After all The Father is the source of a very impressive "All That Is" (re what small data we know about it so far) .

Therefore it would be fair to say that The Father knows what the individual personality expects in order for said personality to "be made to believe"

In your case (the case of the POI -personality) it can be agreed by me that The Father knows that "POI" requires a "special rule" which is contrary to the rule-set which the Father established.
Those who are in communion with The Father also know that they are because they followed the rule-set and that they were not "made to believe" through following said rule-set, but that their initial beliefs enabled them to try out said rule-set and found therein that - when followed - a connection was indeed made between The Father and the individual personality.

Further, I also reckon the same God would know what words to instill into me to convince the skeptics who ask.

Yes, and no doubt The Father would do so, if not for the rule-set.

Happy adventures.