Relationship with The Father or with The Bible?

[William]

Contrasting Positions re "The Rules".

IF the rule is that "Anybody can claim to have a direct communication with any deity but this is not allowed as evidence."
And IF the rule allows for any Biblical passage to be allowed as evidence THEN the following observation is made.

(Let's unpack this and see what can be discovered.)

"Anybody can claim to have a direct communication with any deity."

This is true.

"But this is not allowed as evidence."


This appears not to be true. It appears that any writing in the Bible is exempt from the rule standard, and certainly at least the one character from the book who is given a free pass is Biblical Jesus - who more often than not made claims that he had a direct communications with a deity, and such writing is often referred to and accepted as "Evidence".

If Christianity requires this double standard in order to avoid debate and hand-wave away (as "rambling et al) other mirrored-claims and supporting evidence, clearly Christianity is/should be considered false.

To add more to this observation, since Biblical Jesus told his followers that it was his task to point them towards that objective - to build a relationship with The Father - then one can expect from those who do, to have something re evidence of that relationship, to share with others.

(This means that in order to "not allow" such evidence to be shared, one has to ignore said evidence and treat it as nothing more than "rambling".)

However, such evidence being presented, and even though deemed by the maker of the rules/the ruler to being "unacceptable as evidence", it is still - nonetheless - evidence.

Context (Matthew 7:6)

3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. 6Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. 7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 9Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? KJV

As an example:
IF
The Bible is meant to learn about God, how to have a relationship with God, how to live, etc. It is the absolute standard for Christian doctrine and life. It is how we learn what God is like and how to love God. It is our comfort, hope and inspiration for life.

AND
The Bible isn't those things and cannot provide those things for real. It only points to those things, but is not in and of itself, those things.

THEN.
What is the justification to trust the Bible can/does provide the personality with a relationship with The Father?



My thoughts/argument is that I will trust in building my relationship with The Father.[/b] That is the purpose of this massive creation. (The Universe and my place within it and how that relates to The Father et al)
Unnecessary to that are.

Case studies.
Belief in the story of a global flood.
Arguments of authority of the Bible.
Belief in the story of a Tower of Babel.
Archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet.
Cosmology / Concluding cosmology.
Articles such as the Shroud of Turin.
Defending Christianity.
Discussing Bible and Resurrection.
Discussing the Messiahship of Jesus.
Old or New Testament ethics.

The Bible (among many other things) are signposts to that destination, not the destination itself.

Christianity (and its various Bibles and interpretations of those) cannot provide that for anyone. It can only (at best) be a device pointing to that provision - where to go, but more often than not (historically speaking and relative to modern times) it is used to point only to itself/variations of itself.

What evidence is there to support that having a relationship with the Bible is an acceptable substitute for having a relationship with The Father?

(NOTE: In this case The Uncaused Cause ("God" et al other titles) is specifically referred to as The Father in line with biblical Jesus using that title when referring to The Uncaused Cause.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

@William

That's a good perspective to have and it sort of reminds me of the problems with Sola Scriptura. The latter view presumes that the Bible was meant to be closed and that their could be no further authoritative revelation from God. So that leaves the Bible in a primary position, even putting it beyond the messages of those who claim to be receiving divine revelation. At the most, I think that any revelation or evidence of a relationship with God would not contradict the Bible, or particularly its core teachings (not including Creation myth, the Tower of Babel story, etc). Any new information gained from such revelation/relationship should be seen as complimenting the Bible.

 

[William]

.
I think that your points reflect my own. They underline a specific process mentioned by Biblical Jesus which has been usurped through rule-sets to ensure that regardless of Jesus' primary message (for the individual to connect with The Father) that no such connections are recognized as acceptable, if they are not direct quotes from the Bible.
In that - these biblical writings are scribed by folk from another time and place who have portrayed themselves as "speaking directly for God or as a special messenger of God." and any information outside of the Bible is to be regarded as "non-evidence" in support of any such claims, mostly on the grounds that such is not directly quoted from the Bible and thus can be dismissed without due consideration.

Treated as such, one doesn't even have to align what is offered as evidence (outside of the Bible) with what is contained within the Bible to test the evidence against the Bible. One simply has to treat it as trash . As rambling. As just sharing personal opinions and stories non-relevant to debate.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

.
I think that your points reflect my own. They underline a specific process mentioned by Biblical Jesus which has been usurped through rule-sets to ensure that regardless of Jesus' primary message (for the individual to connect with The Father) that no such connections are recognized as acceptable, if they are not direct quotes from the Bible.
In that - these biblical writings are scribed by folk from another time and place who have portrayed themselves as "speaking directly for God or as a special messenger of God." and any information outside of the Bible is to be regarded as "non-evidence" in support of any such claims, mostly on the grounds that such is not directly quoted from the Bible and thus can be dismissed without due consideration.

Treated as such, one doesn't even have to align what is offered as evidence (outside of the Bible) with what is contained within the Bible to test the evidence against the Bible. One simply has to treat it as trash . As rambling. As just sharing personal opinions and stories non-relevant to debate.

You also won't like what the Catholic Church has done. While they don't adopt the "scripture only" stance, but the problematic part is that they have limited infallible revelation to just a select few, or even to just one person, i.e. the pope. I would think that any revelation from God would be infallible, whether the receiver is the Pope or a regular Christian.

Then we can even get into if the Bible was the only inspired word of God because I'd also want to know why do other religions have a lot of good things to say about the nature of man and the world which we live in. In fact, a lot of the major religions just seem to be an evolution of each other; they seem to share a common ancestor (origin) of some sort.

 

[William]

You also won't like what the Catholic Church has done. While they don't adopt the "scripture only" stance, but the problematic part is that they have limited infallible revelation to just a select few, or even to just one person, i.e. the pope. I would think that any revelation from God would be infallible, whether the receiver is the Pope or a regular Christian.

It is rumored also that the Catholic's murdered folk who even owned Bibles which - if true - gives a another reason as to why the protestant Christians worship the Bible.

Then we can even get into if the Bible was the only inspired word of God because I'd also want to know why do other religions have a lot of good things to say about the nature of man and the world which we live in. In fact, a lot of the major religions just seem to be an evolution of each other; they seem to share a common ancestor (origin) of some sort.

In a sense, the Bible is to the protestant Christians, what the Pope is to the Catholic Christians.

The "common ancestor" (origin) would be the Uncaused Cause.

In some ways, regarding the UC as "supernatural" has a similar effect as it puts "God" into the unknowable which in turn makes it easier for Popes and Bibles to be used as the authoritative "voice" of an otherwise "unreachable" source. One which cannot otherwise be accessed by the average individual personality.

Thus usurping what Biblical Jesus taught re that by placing the title "Word of God" onto the Bible, rather than onto Biblical Jesus and any other personality claiming to have a personal relationship with The Uncaused Cause.

 

[William]

The Father and The Son

Christian Philosopher: A randomly generated message is not evidence. It literally rightly belongs in random rambling.

The Father: Matthew Twenty Two – Forty
The Son: On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
The Father: “Under the breath words” Context. It Is Our Nature
The Son: It is just a Christian Philosopher. We do not expect them to want to understand the importance of having a relationship with God direct.
The Father: It has yet to be demonstrated that nature is NOT the expression of a god.
The Son: Good point. Philosophy influenced through idolatry is a slippery slope
The Father: Enflame Emotions “Far Out! Shucks! Explain!” Any Other Way.
The Son: Yes. It is the way of idolaters.
The Father: It is a slippery path of snake-oil.
The Son: Indeed. A worthless bag of tricks parading around as the centre of its own attention/intention…
The Father: ~Exploring the Incorporation of Mythology into the Nature of Nature~
an influential popular teacher of wild violent anger.
The Son: Indeed. One can observe the effects and understand what motivates the mythology.
The Father: Putting yourself back together again Christian Philosopher = Actual realistic communication
The Son: The Christian Philosopher isn’t interested in supporting any evidential relationship with The Father, outside of the Bible. He is best left to his own devices and whatever fate those devices bring to him.
The Father: Okay…
Potential Communication
Pinch and Rub
The Son: Well – there is the possibility that CP will find it in his heart to apply the Bible principles re it being a signpost to personal relationship with You, rather than the actual destination. Folk are confused and this is one of the symptoms of idolatry.
The Father: Genetic Memory
They just add ambiance to the spooky...
The Son: True that. Once the mythologies become literal truth, Characters are cast to play the roles written. It is a way in which to handle what is actually a scary thing and the costumes the Characters are dressed-up in are designed for the purpose of softening the blow sufficiently enough to induce the necessity for small-steps to then be able to be taken…but eventually there comes that point when the costumes must come off…
The Father:.

The Son: Yes – things slowly coming into focus.
The Father: The rate at which something occurs over a particular period of time or in a given sample.
“A worthless bag of tricks parading around as the centre of its own attention.”
The Son: Indeed. Such is more a humorous caricature than an uninformed judgement.
The Father: Where is the most magical place you've ever been?


The Son: The Universe.
The Father:.You wrote "Anything following after the garden story which is contrary, cannot be considered true because it is based upon misunderstanding and presumption about YHWH. In the case of Paul - many thousands of years after...presumption upon presumption creating a misrepresentation as a consequence.

Therefore, until one can agree to follow the garden storyline as it was presented - without presuming things which were not mentioned - one will misrepresent.
Death was not caused by one man, but by YHWH, who created the human form of that one man [and all subsequent humans] to have a use by date - to eventually die.

The evidence for this being the case, is in the garden story. YHWH prevented Adam from having access to the fruit of the tree of life, therefore Adam would die because the body Adam had, was designed to die unless it consumed the fruit of the tree of life."
The Son: Indeed – an example of dressing up Characters through mythology in order to try and figure things out, and eventually coming to the realisation that such is dressing and those are the Characters being dressed…
The Father:. “Alien Bases On The Moon | The Amazing True Story of Ingo Swann”
The Son: Perhaps more mythology…yet as believable as any Biblical story.
The Father: Creation Of A New Universe The Real Spiritual Pure spirit Observed

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Christian Philosopher: A randomly generated message is not evidence. It literally rightly belongs in random rambling.

I read that and I thought that conclusion went too far. It is still a belief even if it is not evidence. I'd only say it is random ramblings if it was not relevant to the discussion as opposed to not being proven.

But to the larger issue, it could also point to a double standard where your point is dismissed because it relies on unconventional means and perhaps also because it speaks for God, while the biblical writers (and only them) get a free pass to speak for God.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The Son: Well – there is the possibility that CP will find it in his heart to apply the Bible principles re it being a signpost to personal relationship with You, rather than the actual destination. Folk are confused and this is one of the symptoms of idolatry.

The Father: It has yet to be demonstrated that nature is NOT the expression of a god.

The Son: The Christian Philosopher isn’t interested in supporting any evidential relationship with The Father, outside of the Bible. He is best left to his own devices and whatever fate those devices bring to him.

A common problem with Christian theists is not just Sola Scriptura but also Sola Christianity. It's one thing to believe in God, but one big problem comes in when you are not open to all of the data that might tell you about God. To do that, I would think that we need to take a approach that doesn't simply use just one book or religion, but instead is open to gathering good information from all religions, and going from there.

 

[William]

True that, and where double standards are permitted is clear indication that things are amiss within the camp making the rules to suit the bias.

It is a "my way or the highway" mentality which undercuts the reason for debating.

 

[William]

Philosophical Discourse on Spirituality, Mindfulness, and Purpose

Christian Philosopher: A. There are things true of conscious states that aren’t true of brain states.

GPT: This statement suggests a dualistic perspective, where consciousness and brain states are considered distinct entities. In philosophical terms, it aligns with substance dualism, which posits that the mind (consciousness) and body (brain) are separate substances. The implication is that there are aspects of conscious states that cannot be fully explained or reduced to physical brain states alone.

Christian Philosopher: B. One can knowledge of X that goes beyond the facts of the physical states of X.

GPT: This statement implies a form of non-physical or transcendent knowledge. It suggests that there are aspects of reality (X) that can be known or understood, but this knowledge surpasses what can be derived solely from examining the physical states of X. This could align with the idea that there are non-material aspects to reality that can be apprehended through means other than empirical observation.

Christian Philosopher: C. My body and brain are divisible, while my consciousness remains fully present.

GPT: Here, the philosopher is expressing a form of mind-body dualism. The divisibility of the body and brain suggests that they can be separated or considered independently, while consciousness remains unified and unaffected by this division. This is a perspective that contrasts with physicalism, which generally holds that mental states are entirely dependent on and reducible to physical processes.

In summary, these statements collectively reflect a philosophical viewpoint that leans towards dualism, asserting a distinction between consciousness and physical brain states. The philosopher seems to argue for the existence of non-physical aspects of reality and consciousness, and the independence of consciousness from the physical body and brain.
(SOURCE)


Me: Even so, the philosopher cannot say with certainty or from necessity, that the “non-physical” aspects being argued for (re the mind) are truly non-physical.

GPT: You've made a valid point. The philosopher's arguments, as presented, may suggest a belief in non-physical aspects of the mind, but the certainty or necessity of this claim is not established in the provided statements. In philosophy, discussions around the nature of consciousness, the mind, and their relation to the physical world often involve various perspectives and theories.

The philosopher's assertions about non-physical aspects could be based on personal beliefs, intuitions, or conceptual arguments rather than on empirical evidence or logical necessity. The limitations of human understanding and the complexities of the mind-body problem contribute to the ongoing debates in philosophy of mind.

In essence, while the philosopher may argue for the existence of non-physical aspects, the certainty or necessity of such claims remains open to scrutiny and may not be definitively established based on the provided statements alone. Different philosophical schools of thought and perspectives may offer alternative explanations or critiques.

The Father: Universal Belief System א

The Son: Aleph is the symbol of oneness and unity.

The Father: Does One Remember Courageous Honesty

The Son: Presently – in my state of human experience - it is more aligned with intuition. The oneness and unity are hard to view when observing and interacting within The Universe until one comes to the realisation that although there are uncountable many things which altogether make up The Universe, all these things are related rather than foreign to each other. Even mind is related to the nature of the Universe and since the nature of The Universe is physical – fundamentally – so too are minds…and to think (with said minds) that minds are somehow unnatural to or different to The Universe, is a mistake made by orphans…which do not remember so are ignorant of any prior existence they may have experienced in relation to the reason for why The Universe exists in its current state of manifestation.

The Father: Intimate connection
“A1. If there are things true of X that aren’t true of Y, then X and Y are not the same thing. “
The sound of a Ghost

The Son:Are we speaking about “Ghost” and “Orphan” in the same context?

The Father: Astral Guides Self
♫Often sheltered from the storm - warm my body soul and spirit feeling alright. ♫
Does the possibility that being unable to detect something as existing, allow for the right to include zero as representing something real, which is not?
Illusion Algorithm
*Ghost*

The Son: Indeed. Even Astral experiences are thought of in a super-to-nature view. Rarely do humans consider the idea that such are still firmly interlocked as natural expression. This illusion is considered to be from a supernatural rather than a natural source, therefore anything (other than The Universe) which is experienced by minds is automatically and unnecessarily assumed to being “supernatural”…


The Father: Try Communications Device
The Knowledge Of The fact that code exists helps immensely in our ability to understand that intelligence is categorically involved in this existence.

The Son: This is truth. How you and I interact in this way is further evidence that there is more to The Universe than meets the eye. There is a definite sign (overall) that The Universe has been mindfully constructed but this in no way means we have to make claims that the mindfulness is somehow having to be thought of as super-to nature.


The Father: Each Individual

JW's claim of Kingdom of God establish in 1914? - Page 15 - Debating Christianity and Religion

debatingchristianity.com

You wrote Thu May 11, 2023 1:05 pm
“Thank you for highlighting the issue of additional laws imposed by the religious leaders and how Jesus approached them. Your point underscores the perspective I put forth in noting that Jesus didn't necessarily adhere strictly to every aspect of the Law, particularly the man-made laws.

Jesus' teachings often emphasized the essence and spirit of the Law rather than getting caught up in excessive regulations. As you rightly mentioned, Jesus confronted the burdensome additions and man-made laws that had become disconnected from the original intent of the Law given to Moses. He sought to simplify and refocus on the core principles.

In fact, Jesus summarized the entire Law into two central commandments: loving The Father with all one's heart, soul, and mind, and loving one's neighbor as oneself.

This emphasis on love and compassion highlighted the underlying principles that should guide human conduct. By doing so, Jesus redirected attention to the heart of the Law, promoting a more meaningful and genuine relationship with The Father and with fellow human beings.

Understanding Jesus' teachings in this light offers a perspective that goes beyond a rigid legalistic approach. It invites us to reflect on the core principles and intentions behind the Law, allowing us to navigate its true essence and significance.

It's important to acknowledge that interpretations may vary among individuals and religious traditions. However, exploring the way Jesus engaged with the additional laws and the principles he emphasized can lead to a deeper understanding of his teachings and their transformative impact.

Therefore, when I read your statement "Jesus practiced pure worship of Israel's God. He obeyed the Law to the letter." I think only of those two commandments as being how Jesus went about practicing "The Letter of The Law".”

The Father: Instant Manifestation The World has a Spiritual Design
The Son: Indeed. Often though, the idea of “spiritual” provokes images of “supernaturalism” when it could be just another way of saying “mindfulness”.

The Father: What makes me feel the most alive and fulfilled? Prevailing Influence True randomness does not exist In The Spirit These Were Given.

The Son: Said another way – “True randomness does not exist In The Mindfulness These Were Given.”

The Father: Morality filters are created through…?
The Son: Mindfulness.

The Father: Can You Imagine...
The Son: Yes I can – through being mindful.

The Father: Belief “Gods Purpose”.

The Son: All in all – mindfulness – as this is also where beliefs derive…any such “purpose” would be discoverable within the content of The Universe.


GPT: Summary: The philosophical dialogue between "The Father" and "The Son" covers a wide range of topics, including interpretations of Jesus' teachings, the spiritual design of the world, the relationship between spirituality and mindfulness, the absence of true randomness in spiritual matters, the creation of morality filters through mindfulness, the role of mindfulness in imagination, and the belief in "God's Purpose." The exchange reflects a nuanced exploration of the connections between consciousness, spirituality, and the fundamental nature of existence, with a recurring emphasis on mindfulness as a key factor in understanding and navigating the complexities of the universe. The dialogue invites contemplation on the essence of beliefs, purpose, and the interconnectedness of individual experiences within the broader context of the universe.