In The Beginning...

[William]

Question For Debate:



Resources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... imulation/
https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory
https://www.simulation-argument.com/

[The Tanager]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #154]

Even though it isn’t my burden to prove your conclusion wrong, I have shared the weaknesses I see in GMs: apparent randomness of method, your involvement in limiting the phrases/videos the method is used on, and the vagueness of the GMs to the point where vastly different meanings can be interpreted from them. So, your case should address such critiques.

[Search "In The Beginning Document" + "Context"]

Why not interpret the message like this:

Mostly 'why not' has to do with context Tanager. Those interested parties who have been regularly reading the GMs offered over the course of the past 11 months, will understand context re all of the GMs collectively, rather than simply make unsubstantiated remarks about the one part I quoted, and claim said remarks are valid interpretations.

Cleary I did respond to your critique, and notably, you gave no further comment to my response.
I have no interest in repeating my argument, if you have no interest in making further comment to my responses re your original critique.

That is too roundabout for my liking, and I prefer a more straightforward direction...

Look at post #144. I directly responded to this. And you responded to my response and we kept responding to each other.

[The Tanager]

On YHVH

Clearly this is the subject to which our disagreement on everything else, can be traced.

Agreed?

...

19: Insights come naturally to those who are in genuine relationship with YHVH
20: Those who are in genuine relationship with YHVH recognize the similarity while also acknowledging the unique in others who are also in genuine relationship with YHVH.
22: What we do agree on, can help us formulate a better relationship with each other, re YHVH.

Do you agree with the more recent items on the list?

19. I think I agree, as long as "natural" isn't meant as an antonym of "supernatural"

20. If you mean those in a genuine relationship never make mistakes, I disagree. Unless "genuine relationship" is just another way to say when one in a relationship isn't making a mistake.

22. I'm still not sure what the "re YHVH" refers to. That we can know what each other thinks about YHVH better? That we will see we both are in a relationship with YHVH? Something else?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #161]

Cleary I did respond to your critique, and notably, you gave no further comment to my response.
I have no interest in repeating my argument, if you have no interest in making further comment to my responses re your original critique.

That is too roundabout for my liking, and I prefer a more straightforward direction...

Look at post #144. I directly responded to this. And you responded to my response and we kept responding to each other.

The response I made and I am referring to - which was not addressed by you - was

The argument goes along the lines as to why would "God" use such a device to convey messages instead of simply making one message for all to easily understand?
That argument is no different from your own, and does not belong on this particular table.

Agreed?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #162]

19: Insights come naturally to those who are in genuine relationship with YHVH

19. I think I agree, as long as "natural" isn't meant as an antonym of "supernatural"

"Supernatural" is not a word used at this table re this conversation.
"Natural" refers to something which can be measured as real, re The Created.
"The Created" refers to agreement #1

1: We exist within a creation.

20: Those who are in genuine relationship with YHVH recognize the similarity while also acknowledging the unique in others who are also in genuine relationship with YHVH.

20. If you mean those in a genuine relationship never make mistakes, I disagree. Unless "genuine relationship" is just another way to say when one in a relationship isn't making a mistake.

"Mistakes" belongs in the same category as "Supernatural" in that it has no place in our discussion, if by its use, you are referring to anything in a judgmental manner.
In that, we will have to agree with the following;

23: We do not conflate using discernment, with being Judgmental.

In that, the word 'mistake' becomes meaningless unless it is shown through discernment, to be meaningful.

Agreed?

22: What we do agree on, can help us formulate a better relationship with each other, re YHVH.

22. I'm still not sure what the "re YHVH" refers to.

Regarding what we have - at this point - agreed together re YHVH re the Agreement List

That we can know what each other thinks about YHVH better?

That is part of the process re the goal of creating a genuine relationship between you and I, Yes.
The Agreement List helps us in that aim as it acts as a navigational aid.

That we will see we both are in a relationship with YHVH?

That we might eventually come to that point, yes.

Something else?

The Agreement list can be added to, as the 'else' comes along.

Agreement List:
1: We exist within a creation.
2: Simulation Theory is a valid way to interpret the Biblical stories.
3: YVHV placed humans into this universe to grow personalities.
4: The purpose of YVHV growing human personalities is so that these would potentially gain experience of the truth of the reason for their environment and their temporary experience within it.
5: It is an advantage to all grown personalities to be consciously and consistently connected with YVHV and thus understand and support YVHVs initiatives.
6: Human personalities - upon the death of their body-sets - move on to other experiences.
7: Anything which changes is not the same thing as it once was.
8: YHVH is not a simulation.
9: YHVH's agenda continues regardless of whether humans understand good or evil the way YHVH understands it, or not
10: A resurrected body does not imply the same body
11: YHVH does not practice evil
12: Those who act against the agenda of YHVH, accuse YHVH of being evil.
13: YVHV uses what YVHV will to get the message across...
14: Simulation Theory can fit with the story of Jesus’ ascension.
15: Simulation Theory can validate non-biblical stories as well.
16: Things experienced in simulation are still real experiences
17: We cannot say - either of the story of Jesus, or indeed, any other Biblical story - that these stories do not reveal simulation theory.
18: We must continually question the teachings we’ve bought into, what we grew up in, what we want to be true, etc.
19: Insights come naturally to those who are in genuine relationship with YHVH
20: Those who are in genuine relationship with YHVH recognize the similarity while also acknowledging the unique in others who are also in genuine relationship with YHVH.
22: What we do agree on, can help us formulate a better relationship with each other, re YHVH.

23: We do not conflate using Discernment, with being Judgmental. Discern...without any accompanying judgmentalism...[It allows for one to unravel to complexities]

This was mentioned earlier {Link to highlight}

For example, one can discern a mistake in the following.
It is a mistake to conflate being able to discern something with being able to be judgmental about something.
Agreed?

24: YVHV is The Judge.

Agreed?
_______
Today's GM re our current conversation

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #161]

Cleary I did respond to your critique, and notably, you gave no further comment to my response.
I have no interest in repeating my argument, if you have no interest in making further comment to my responses re your original critique.

That is too roundabout for my liking, and I prefer a more straightforward direction...

Look at post #144. I directly responded to this. And you responded to my response and we kept responding to each other.

The response I made and I am referring to - which was not addressed by you - was

The argument goes along the lines as to why would "God" use such a device to convey messages instead of simply making one message for all to easily understand?
That argument is no different from your own, and does not belong on this particular table.

Agreed?

Re: The Generated Messages and YHVH possibly using the device as a means of communicating.

Your critique has been shown to fall short on the following main counts;

1: The evidence presented in the GMs shows that these are more than just incoherent ramblings

2: The fact that you can interpret them through the filter of your thinking processes also shows that there must be coherency involved or this could not be achieved.

3: Those readers following the GM's would not do so, if your critique about the content was actually true.

4: The GM's cannot be truthfully critiqued by one, if one does not to take them altogether, in context.

5: Your protest that YVHV would not use something which does not give clear indication of YHVHs agenda to the reader, goes against the evidence as pointed out to you re sectors of Abrahamic religions not being able to agree with each other on particulars.

This is because - by and large - Abrahamic scripture shows clearly that YHVH often speaks in riddles [of sorts] and not revealing all pertinent information.
Rather than being crystal clear re the individuals and YHVH's interactions with said individuals, re the recordings which make up all of Abrahamic scriptures.

As has been noted, one such example being "I Am That I Am" - clarity is obviously absent in the remark and as such, the remark is open to interpretation by every individual personality hearing of it.

This was also [not coincidently imo] brought to the readers attention in today's GM, which I linked in my previous post.

I quote;

GM: I Will
The "Everything Is Unique" Mantra
viewtopic.php?p=1092601#p1092601

William: FTL; Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[Replying to brunumb in post #1374]


God inspired his personal name in the OT nearly 6800 places. Because it is his will for that name to be there is why. It was called the tetragramoton= YHWH--Men replaced it with GOD or LORD all capitols. They had no right. It was done by satans will to mislead. As well in the NT where the OT is quoted and the name belongs about 200 spots. So close to 7000 spots-YHWH name was removed. It has caused much confusion as to who God is.

I hesitate to go so far as you have gone here.

"I Am That I Am" [YHWH] allows everyone the right of passage to decide for themselves as to who this entity is, to them.

So if some say "LORD" or "GOD" or "Murdering Psychopath" or "Invisible Sky Daddy" et al - there is no requirement to accuse Satan of misleading them in their deciding for themselves.

God is to everyone, whatever they choose God to being, through their world view.

The true God= Father only accepts being worshipped in spirit and truth-John 4:22-24)
The Hebrew scholars, who know the Hebrew language better than any say, there is no i am that i am in their Hebrew written OT. I will be what i will be is the correct translating of that passage.

Splitting hairs achieves nothing. "I am that I am" = "I will be what I will be." and still fits in with what I wrote; In other words;

"I will be what I will be." [YHWH] allows everyone the right of passage to decide for themselves as to who this entity is, to them.

So if some say "LORD" or "GOD" or "Murdering Psychopath" or "Invisible Sky Daddy" et al - there is no requirement to accuse Satan of misleading them in their deciding for themselves.

God is to everyone, whatever they choose God to being, through their world view.

However, since this is not the subject of the thread topic - if you want to argue it more, I suggest that another thread be created in order to do so.

GM: Inflame Emotions
Any Other Way How shallow is the reach of YHWH
{SOURCE}

I opinion that YHVH does this as a means of making sure The Elohim input re the individual personality is at a minimum so as the results of the free will ingredient are not fudged so as to provide a means/opportunity of any accuser claiming that YHVH influenced said results as in "why the individual 'really' bows to YHVH's wisdom re the Omni-attributes - not through the individuals act of free will - but by YHVH's interference in instructing the individual personality in a manner which would clearly show the observer that the accuser is correct that YHVH has unduly influenced the sovereignty of the individuals free will and ability to correctly discern without judgement, on the personalities own diligence.

[The Tanager]

The response I made and I am referring to - which was not addressed by you - was

The argument goes along the lines as to why would "God" use such a device to convey messages instead of simply making one message for all to easily understand?
That argument is no different from your own, and does not belong on this particular table.
Agreed?

I’m sorry. I don’t remember reading that, so I must have lost track and ended up skipping over it. I don’t see how that argument is the same as mine, though.

19: Insights come naturally to those who are in genuine relationship with YHVH

"Natural" refers to something which can be measured as real, re The Created.

So, “Insights come (in a way that can be measured as real) to those who are in genuine relationship with YHVH”? I’m not sure what that means. Can you give multiple examples of an insight being measured as real?

23: We do not conflate using discernment, with being Judgmental.

In that, the word 'mistake' becomes meaningless unless it is shown through discernment, to be meaningful.

Yes, I think discernment will lead to one rightfully calling something a mistake, but one should not do so in a judgmental way.

22: What we do agree on, can help us formulate a better relationship with each other, re YHVH.

22. I'm still not sure what the "re YHVH" refers to.

Regarding what we have - at this point - agreed together re YHVH re the Agreement List

So, “what we do agree on about YHVH, can help us formulate a better relationship with each other (regarding what we’ve agreed on about YHVH)? That wording is a bit confusing. I think relationships can be great with agreements and disagreements.

24: YVHV is The Judge.

Agreed?

Yes.

Re: The Generated Messages and YHVH possibly using the device as a means of communicating.

Your critique has been shown to fall short on the following main counts;

1: The evidence presented in the GMs shows that these are more than just incoherent ramblings

I thank you for making a case. To make sure we are clear, my claim is that the coherency of the GMs is provided by you (or another interpreter), not that no coherency can be given to them.

2: The fact that you can interpret them through the filter of your thinking processes also shows that there must be coherency involved or this could not be achieved.

I’m providing the coherency because of how vague they are. That you can provide an entirely different, yet coherent message speaks against their usefulness as an objectively verifiable communication device.

3: Those readers following the GM's would not do so, if your critique about the content was actually true.

Why not?

4: The GM's cannot be truthfully critiqued by one, if one does not to take them altogether, in context.

I’m game for running a GM (new or old) as a whole through my critiques.

5: Your protest that YVHV would not use something which does not give clear indication of YHVHs agenda to the reader, goes against the evidence as pointed out to you re sectors of Abrahamic religions not being able to agree with each other on particulars.

I’m definitely not saying that YHVH would only use a message that couldn’t be misunderstood; that would probably be impossible, because of the nature of language and communication. But these GMs are more vague than the narratives, poetry, etc. of things like the Biblical accounts.

This is because - by and large - Abrahamic scripture shows clearly that YHVH often speaks in riddles [of sorts] and not revealing all pertinent information.

Yes, much of the literature is meant to be meditated on, connected to previous events in the story, insights drawn out, but this is a way to pull out what is already there, while your GMs seem to require information being injected into them.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #166]

The argument goes along the lines as to why would "God" use such a device to convey messages instead of simply making one message for all to easily understand?
That argument is no different from your own, and does not belong on this particular table.
Agreed?

I’m sorry. I don’t remember reading that, so I must have lost track and ended up skipping over it.

These things happen.

I don’t see how that argument is the same as mine, though.

You lost track. You regained the opportunity to get back on track.

If you think my argument didn't answer you own, please tell us why not.

So, “Insights come (in a way that can be measured as real) to those who are in genuine relationship with YHVH”? I’m not sure what that means. Can you give multiple examples of an insight being measured as real?

Re YHVH - the relationship between the individual personality and YHVH is purely subjective and interpreted in that manner.
You have already expressed suspicion about the subjective nature of relationship. Now you are asking for examples? What subjective examples re insight could be accepted other than re Agreement 20?

20: Those who are in genuine relationship with YHVH recognize the similarity while also acknowledging the unique in others who are also in genuine relationship with YHVH.

Otherwise, I do not understand the nature or purpose of your request.

So, “what we do agree on about YHVH, can help us formulate a better relationship with each other (regarding what we’ve agreed on about YHVH)? That wording is a bit confusing.

Given what we have agree to already, how would you word it, that it would be less confusing?

I think relationships can be great with agreements and disagreements.

Can you give an example where you disagree with YHVH/ YHVH disagrees with you, yet your relationship with each other is still 'great'?

I’m providing the coherency because of how vague they are.

Are you therefore arguing that they are incoherent until you provided them with coherency? Can you explain how you are able to do this with vague things?

That you can provide an entirely different, yet coherent message speaks against their usefulness as an objectively verifiable communication device.

Is your argument therefore, that as an objective device these GMs are not useful in relation to the possibility YHVH can use the device system as a means of communicating with the individual personality subjectively?

That has been part of my argument. Perhaps you missed that as well?

The system used is objective as it includes things which are objective.

The reader sees the GMs objectively and this in itself is not able to show one way or the other whether YHVH can or cannot/does or does not utilize the option as a further means of communicating with the individual personality.

The science is repeatable, which means that anyone can make their own list [ComList as I refer to the collective journal entries] and use the same process to generate messages peculiar to their own subjective experience and therein gain a better insight into what is going on and how it can help them - rather than simply rely on the subjective messages of others who are/think they might be in relationship with YHVH and building upon that relationship through the use of the GM process as well as in other related ways.

All of which, are subjective, as such can only be.

My argument has always been that the GMs act primarily as a subjective device. I acknowledge that there is a following in every internet forum where I post these, which tells me that even as objective items, the GMs have enough coherency in them to keep folk interested in following the GMs as I share them.

Also to note, with the addition of journaled links to previous posts, to YouTube channels and scientific papers et all - such add significant detail rather than the vagueness you claim as all that you see, Tanager.

Based on that evidence, I have no option but to continue to reject your critique as honest and useful.

As to my own commentary which I include as part of the GM's - these are subjective and show the reader the type of relationship I am having with the process re the mind behind this created environment we are all sharing together.

If the mind is not YHVH's, then how can you tell, and who else could the mind be?

4: The GM's cannot be truthfully critiqued by one, if one does not to take them altogether, in context.

I’m game for running a GM (new or old) as a whole through my critiques.

I have linked you with the last couple of GM posts. You can start with those if you are - as you say - "game".

I will remind you though;

It has to do with context Tanager. Those interested parties who have been regularly reading the GMs offered over the course of the past 11 months, will understand context re all of the GMs collectively,

Since you have not been following the GMs from the go get, or even since we have been having this discussion, you are likely to miss the context and in doing so, misinterpret. Please bear that in mind.

Perhaps the better approach would be for you to stop look and listen for a while, by reading the GMs from here on in, so as to give them a chance to show they are not as vague as secondary glances might otherwise tell you.

Agreed?

I’m definitely not saying that YHVH would only use a message that couldn’t be misunderstood; that would probably be impossible, because of the nature of language and communication.

YHVH designed language, so it is not a matter of being impossible, but perhaps the way in which language is misused by human personalities in their communicating, is where the problem can be sourced?

But these GMs are more vague than the narratives, poetry, etc. of things like the Biblical accounts.

Incorrect, for reasons I have expressed above.

There is nothing vague about internet links, data therein, posts made in the past, et al.

Perhaps you could give a few examples as to what you regard as 'vague, that we might better understand your critique, but currently your expression is making the charge against the whole, when it may simply be parts you are referring to.

Abrahamic scripture shows clearly that YHVH often speaks in riddles [of sorts] and not revealing all pertinent information.

Yes, much of the literature is meant to be meditated on, connected to previous events in the story, insights drawn out, but this is a way to pull out what is already there, while your GMs seem to require information being injected into them.

I disagree with this assessment Tanager. The literature of the Bible is a collection of things pulled out of various sources and gathered together into one overall book, and one which itself, is the source of much confusion, disagreement on interpretation, and vagueness as folk pull out parts from what is already there.

All information is channeled.

The main difference between the GM process and the Bible, is that the ComList [journal entries] is a living document which can be added to, taken away from, and generally adjusted as necessary and the Bible is not a living document, and closed off to additions [other than the creation of various "versions"]

The GMs published are not edited afterward in any manner which changes the context of what message was generated - other than sometimes to make minor adjustments re spelling and other type editing which was missed during the proofreading stage.

Generally, what GMs I share hereabouts, are exactly the same as what I share on other internet forums, Facebook groups et al...

[The Tanager]

Why would YHVH use a method that could be interpreted to put just about any message in YHVH’s mouth that one would want?

The argument goes along the lines as to why would "God" use such a device to convey messages instead of simply making one message for all to easily understand?
That argument is no different from your own, and does not belong on this particular table.

If you think my argument didn't answer you own, please tell us why not.

I did. You said my argument is the same as this other one, when I don’t see how it is. Mine critiques a specific method due to its vagueness. Yours says YHVH should only make one message. I don’t see how that is the same.

Re YHVH - the relationship between the individual personality and YHVH is purely subjective and interpreted in that manner.
You have already expressed suspicion about the subjective nature of relationship. Now you are asking for examples? What subjective examples re insight could be accepted other than re Agreement 20?

Are you saying that agreement 20 is the insight? If so, how is agreement 20 “measured as real” rather than unreal? I’m not saying it isn’t, I’m trying to figure out what that means.

Given what we have agree to already, how would you word it, that it would be less confusing?

I don’t know what concept you are trying to convey, so how could I know how I would word it?

Can you give an example where you disagree with YHVH/ YHVH disagrees with you, yet your relationship with each other is still 'great'?

Does YHVH’s love, in your view, depend on us knowing everything? I don’t know what I’ve got wrong about reality (or I’d change that thing), but I know I’m not perfect in knowledge, so there must be something I disagree with YHVH on. Yet, YHVH still loves me.

Are you therefore arguing that they are incoherent until you provided them with coherency? Can you explain how you are able to do this with vague things?

They are just a collection of words, phrases, etc. until me (or you or someone else) reads a meaning into them, connecting them together.

Is your argument therefore, that as an objective device these GMs are not useful in relation to the possibility YHVH can use the device system as a means of communicating with the individual personality subjectively?

That has been part of my argument. Perhaps you missed that as well?

As I said earlier, if your argument is simply that YHVH could use it, then I agree. Would YHVH use it is a different question. I think (due to the randomness of formation, the limitations put on what words, phrases, etc. can be used, and the vague result that is then filled in with one’s own understanding) would lead YHVH to choose not to use it, since it could be so easily misunderstood and be re-made in the recipient’s image instead of what YHVH wants to convey in a much easier way than coming to earth and speaking full sentences, performing actions, etc.

My argument has always been that the GMs act primarily as a subjective device. I acknowledge that there is a following in every internet forum where I post these, which tells me that even as objective items, the GMs have enough coherency in them to keep folk interested in following the GMs as I share them.

They could be interested in the meaning you give to them or a different meaning that they give to them, though. That doesn’t point to them having objective meaning.

Also to note, with the addition of journaled links to previous posts, to YouTube channels and scientific papers et all - such add significant detail rather than the vagueness you claim as all that you see, Tanager.

Based on that evidence, I have no option but to continue to reject your critique as honest and useful.

You do have options. I interpreted that message, used every element of it in a coherent way, and got a totally different meaning. That means the message is extremely vague.

As to my own commentary which I include as part of the GM's - these are subjective and show the reader the type of relationship I am having with the process re the mind behind this created environment we are all sharing together.

If the mind is not YHVH's, then how can you tell, and who else could the mind be?

It’s your mind. You’ve randomized words and phrases you chose to add and then filled in the gaps with your thoughts to make it coherent.

Perhaps the better approach would be for you to stop look and listen for a while, by reading the GMs from here on in, so as to give them a chance to show they are not as vague as secondary glances might otherwise tell you.

I actually have done that before. That’s why I feel confident enough to say they are vague. I don’t just throw conclusions around, but look into them. I’m still open to doing it again. If I change my mind after doing so, I’ll be sure to let you know.

There is nothing vague about internet links, data therein, posts made in the past, et al.

The vagueness comes in connecting all the things together.

Perhaps you could give a few examples as to what you regard as 'vague, that we might better understand your critique, but currently your expression is making the charge against the whole, when it may simply be parts you are referring to.

Every one I’ve read, I would call vague enough to come up with a handful of different interpretations that contradict each other at points. As I said above, I’d be up for interacting with you on a brand new GM, if you think the context would be missed otherwise. Or, if you want, I’ll just observe and if anything changes let you know.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #168]

Why would YHVH use a method that could be interpreted to put just about any message in YHVH’s mouth that one would want?

The argument goes along the lines as to why would "God" use such a device to convey messages instead of simply making one message for all to easily understand?
That argument is no different from your own, and does not belong on this particular table.

If you think my argument didn't answer you own, please tell us why not.

I did. You said my argument is the same as this other one, when I don’t see how it is. Mine critiques a specific method due to its vagueness. Yours says YHVH should only make one message. I don’t see how that is the same.

You appear to have gone off track with this Tanager. I do not understand what argument you are making re the above.

Are you saying that agreement 20 is the insight? If so, how is agreement 20 “measured as real” rather than unreal? I’m not saying it isn’t, I’m trying to figure out what that means.

Did you not agree with agreement 20?

Can you give an example where you disagree with YHVH/ YHVH disagrees with you, yet your relationship with each other is still 'great'?

Does YHVH’s love, in your view, depend on us knowing everything?

I am arguing relationship - individual personality with YHVH. YHVH's love does not even depend upon human existence.

I know I’m not perfect in knowledge, so there must be something I disagree with YHVH on.

But if you do not know what the 'something' is, you cannot give any example, therefore you have nothing to measure with as to how 'great' or not, your relationship is with YHVH.
Thus, it must have something to do with something else, that anyone would think their relationship with YHVH is 'great'.

They are just a collection of words, phrases, etc.

They certainly are when part of the Journal ComList.

until me (or you or someone else) reads a meaning into them, connecting them together.

You show your lack of understanding as to what is going on in the selection process, Tanager.

I have made it quite clear, what selection system is involved, so the 'connecting together' of the words, phrases, et al happens first, and as this occurs, coherency evolves.

As I said earlier, if your argument is simply that YHVH could use it, then I agree. Would YHVH use it is a different question. I think (due to the randomness of formation, the limitations put on what words, phrases, etc. can be used, and the vague result that is then filled in with one’s own understanding) would lead YHVH to choose not to use it, since it could be so easily misunderstood and be re-made in the recipient’s image instead of what YHVH wants to convey in a much easier way than coming to earth and speaking full sentences, performing actions, etc.

We have agreed that
13: YVHV uses what YVHV will to get the message across...
18: We must continually question the teachings we’ve bought into, what we grew up in, what we want to be true, etc.

and you have been asked and agreed that if any of the messages were questionable, you would be able to point those out.

The Bible is no different as it is dependent upon the same output/input process and individual interpretations as it has been shown to be so easily misunderstood and be re-made in the recipient’s image instead of what YHVH wants to convey.

My argument has always been that the GMs act primarily as a subjective device. I acknowledge that there is a following in every internet forum where I post these, which tells me that even as objective items, the GMs have enough coherency in them to keep folk interested in following the GMs as I share them.

They could be interested in the meaning you give to them or a different meaning that they give to them, though. That doesn’t point to them having objective meaning.

My point remains Tanager.

You do have options. I interpreted that message, used every element of it in a coherent way, and got a totally different meaning. That means the message is extremely vague.

NO.

You CLAIMED that you 'got a totally different message.
You have been asked to support that claim, and have not done so.

It’s your mind. You’ve randomized words and phrases you chose to add and then filled in the gaps with your thoughts to make it coherent.

I'm finished with this subject, as it is obvious we are not going to agree.

Are you ready to move on with The Garden Story?

[The Tanager]

You appear to have gone off track with this Tanager. I do not understand what argument you are making re the above.

My argument was that YHVH wouldn’t use the GMs because their vagueness would lead to the person forming the message in their own image. I’m trying to figure out what your critique of that was, because it didn’t seem to apply to me.

Did you not agree with agreement 20?

Yes. The problem is that I have no idea what you mean when you talk about measuring an insight as real/unreal.

But if you do not know what the 'something' is, you cannot give any example, therefore you have nothing to measure with as to how 'great' or not, your relationship is with YHVH.
Thus, it must have something to do with something else, that anyone would think their relationship with YHVH is 'great'.

That’s my point. Our relationship with YHVH is not about knowing everything perfectly (i.e., agreeing on everything with YHVH). Thus, I can also have relationships with people I disagree with.

The Bible is no different as it is dependent upon the same output/input process and individual interpretations as it has been shown to be so easily misunderstood and be re-made in the recipient’s image instead of what YHVH wants to convey.

No, they are different. Yes the Bible can be misinterpreted, but it’s harder to do because of the entire context, because of full sentences being used. GMs are built in a way that there are gaps between most random words, phrases, etc. that must be filled in with verbs, conjunctions, ideas, etc.

You CLAIMED that you 'got a totally different message.
You have been asked to support that claim, and have not done so.

I talked about how the message was wanting you to convert to a traditional understanding of Jesus as your Savior and God and that YHVH is an ontologically distinct being from you. Are you saying that is how you interpreted the message? If not, then are they not different messages that we interpreted?

Are you ready to move on with The Garden Story?

Sure. Lay out how you think the context shows that Adam didn’t know it was important to obey YHVH.