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]

This is exactly the type of thing which is reported by modern humans re NDEs.

In my studies of NDEs and other ways in which alternate reality experiences can happen for humans, I have seen a similarity which crosses all cultures and every cultural belief ever uttered, including those stories in the Bible.

The language in which it is reported is different - as we should expect - but the context is the same.

And this is scriptural evidence that if NDE teachings contradict Jesus’ historical teachings that we should discard or not discard them? If so, how? If not, then you seem to think I was saying something that I wasn’t.

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.

I think re 6&7 there is more to discuss together before full agreement is reached...agreed?

I see no problem with these in their general senses. If we die and temporarily experience an unembodied existence or death is immediately followed by a resurrected body-set experience, then 6 would seem to be true. And I agree that to change means that X wasn’t the same as it was before.

That is what my part this discussion am attempting to do. I am sure you will agree with me that it is not going to happen overnight.
I will say that it has been made obvious that I think what you refer to as "Traditional Christianity" has something to do with the thread title...but I will also say that I do not use the phrase as I do not understand what is being meant by its use, or whether your use of it is different from another Christians use of it.
What do you mean by the phrase?

With no slight to other forms of ancient Christianity, solely for the purposes of categorizing movements to make them easier to speak about, I mean the historically orthodox faith that teaches that God is triune, that Jesus is the Messiah, the only way to God, etc. What CS Lewis called “mere Christianity”. One that did not say we live in a simulation (in the senses of things like the Descartes’ demon, brains in a vat, the Matrix, etc.).

Is YHVH a simulation? Perhaps we can add that to our list of thing we agree on.

[8: YHVH is not a simulation.]

If we agree with that, we can go on together in the quest of discovering the answer to the question you asked, and perhaps, come to an agreement.

I agree YHWH is not a simulation.

Let us agree that we can use the term deleted, without the quotation marks.
Please explain where the soul which loses the personality it is assigned to, goes when the personality is deleted.

[We will have to agree to what a SOUL is, yes?]

Yes, we would have to agree on what a soul is. We don’t seem to. I don’t think the human soul is something different from the human personality. Thus, if the personality is deleted, then the soul is deleted as well.

In order to ignore a warning, are we not first required to be made aware of the warning?

Yes. What is the warning? Yes, Jesus speaks of evil increasing, but he never compares how much good and evil exist or even the balance in the future. We are still told to be faithful and wise, give the master’s household food, doing what the master told us to do (v. 45-46).

As to the areas I think are getting better and those getting worse...Individual relationships get better, people learn to live more content lives, medicine improves the quality of life versus people killing each other, stealing from each other, etc.

The bolding denotes that there is no 'other' involved with either acts of good or evil, as it pertains to human notions re good and evil.

The hebrew term here, ra’ah, has a range of meanings from moral evil to disaster/calamity. It’s like our “bad”. Why do you think that moral evil is being talked about here in Isaiah 45?

Re the video, the random time selection @ [RTS=9:00] there is a pertinent answer to the question you asked which requires only 45 seconds of viewing.

[The GM itself is the last part of a series which are focused upon this thread topic and in particular, post #126 and our interaction.]

Please read the above, view the video section and then we can proceed with finding potential agreement, as we continue with this aspect of our discussion.

Okay, I’ve done so. Now, how would you answer my question? Do we need to change our concept of evil in the sense of seeing child abuse, the act itself, as not evil?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #131]

And this is scriptural evidence that if NDE teachings contradict Jesus’ historical teachings that we should discard or not discard them? If so, how? If not, then you seem to think I was saying something that I wasn’t.

You would have to give examples of what you are referring to re these supposed contradictions. I was offering biblical reference to alternate experiences re the similarity of the reports we get from those who have experienced NDEs.

I see no problem with these in their general senses. If we die and temporarily experience an unembodied existence or death is immediately followed by a resurrected body-set experience, then 6 would seem to be true. And I agree that to change means that X wasn’t the same as it was before.

We have both agreed that:
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.

With no slight to other forms of ancient Christianity, solely for the purposes of categorizing movements to make them easier to speak about, I mean the historically orthodox faith that teaches that God is triune, that Jesus is the Messiah, the only way to God, etc. What CS Lewis called “mere Christianity”. One that did not say we live in a simulation (in the senses of things like the Descartes’ demon, brains in a vat, the Matrix, etc.).

I have already spoken to these and you have yet to respond.
[In short, none of the traditions mentioned, refute ST.]

You made the statement;

If ST theory is true, then the Biblical accounts are oblivious to that fact.

And I directed you to a verse where alternate experiences are mentioned.
The alternate experiences concur with the overall idea of simulations.

I agree YHWH is not a simulation.

We have both agreed that:
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.

Yes, we would have to agree on what a soul is. We don’t seem to. I don’t think the human soul is something different from the human personality. Thus, if the personality is deleted, then the soul is deleted as well.

Please explain what you think gives life to the human form. I have already stated that I think the soul is synonymous with the metaphor re the breath of YHVH. [Genesis 2:7]

What is the warning?

You were the one who mentioned 'warnings'';

Tanager: This verse is about being aware of things, unlike those in the day of Noah who ignored the warnings.

The hebrew term here, ra’ah, has a range of meanings from moral evil to disaster/calamity. It’s like our “bad”.

Let us agree to avoiding semantics.

Why do you think that moral evil is being talked about here?

What evil would you say does not fit under the category of morality?
A volcano erupting and burying a city?
That would be one such thing I would regard as our needing to change our concept of evil. Otherwise we run the risk of thinking that the environment itself is evil, which contradict YHVH stating it was very good. [Genesis 1:31]

Okay, I’ve done so.

What did you find in doing so. Is this something you would regard as 'contrary to the teachings of biblical Jesus?' If so, why?

Now, how would you answer my question? Do we need to change our concept of evil in the sense of seeing child abuse, the act itself, as not evil?

In this current reality, it is best to accept that such is wrong and requires all due social responsibility to ensure one avoids committing such, as well as looking out for and helping to protect children from such acts.
It also requires understanding and this would involve applying science/psychology et al...as there’s almost always a way to otherwise misunderstand something. As misunderstandings go, it’s often not until pertinent in-depth study is applied, that the misunderstanding is discovered.

Remember to apply science and logic in order to understand processes taking place in the human psyche.

Having said as much, I do not want this thread to turn into a debate about child abuse. It is enough to understand that the nature of our particular environment allows for all sorts of abuses to occur, and my own thoughts on the subject have been expressed adequately in another thread, which I think Historia created a couple of months ago [if memory serves me well.]

Child abuse is addressed through law, and while some - or even many - might refer to it as 'evil' the law simply recognizes it as wrong and there are even attempts made to help the offender change the way in which children are viewed as sexual-objects - it is a complicated subject, and one in which I am unwilling to declare as 'evil' without first understanding what my questioner means by the term.

My answer to your question as it stands, would be similar to the bible story and Jesus' answer to the accusers. [John 8] and in that, yes - we do appear to have the need to reevaluate so-called 'acts of evil' as part of the overall process of connection and maintaining communion with the Truth of YHVH.

9: It is YHVH alone who makes the call regarding judgement on any evil an individual personality commits.

Agreed?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #132]

You would have to give examples of what you are referring to re these supposed contradictions. I was offering biblical reference to alternate experiences re the similarity of the reports we get from those who have experienced NDEs.

I was saying that if there were contradictions, that it would be more rational to trust the historical teachings over one’s claims that Jesus has changed his mind and is now teaching such-and-such. I wouldn't have to give actual contradictions for one to assess the truth of this propositional statement. One simply assesses what would follow if there were any actual contradictions.

And I directed you to a verse where alternate experiences are mentioned.
The alternate experiences concur with the overall idea of simulations.

I didn’t say there aren’t alternate experiences. Nor do I know if they concur with the overall idea of simulations. You need to define what you mean by “simulation” for this to go further.

Please explain what you think gives life to the human form. I have already stated that I think the soul is synonymous with the metaphor re the breath of YHVH. [Genesis 2:7]

Yes, I think God gives life and that a metaphor of this is the breath of YHWH. I think that when God gives life it is the springing forth of an embodied personality. So, there are two ontological beings I’ve mentioned here: (1) God and (2) an embodied personality. What concept do you want us to refer to, at least in this conversation, by the term “soul”? 1, 2, or perhaps (3) the breath of YHWH as a being distinct from YHWH, or (4) something else?

You were the one who mentioned 'warnings'';

Yes, rhetorically so. I then explained that I think the message was about staying faithful to God and His ways in spite of the sufferings coming their way. The warnings were not “wickedness outweighs goodness by a ratio of 9 to 1” or something like that.

The hebrew term here, ra’ah, has a range of meanings from moral evil to disaster/calamity. It’s like our “bad”.

Let us agree to avoiding semantics.

This is not semantics. It is very important to know if God is talking about creating moral evil or about bringing calamity into one’s life, whether that is through natural “evil” (which, I agree with you, should not be called “evil”) or moral evil (like war, rape, etc.). Creating moral evil and creating a system that will allow for moral evil to exist and affect others are two very different things.

9: It is YHVH alone who makes the call regarding judgement on any evil an individual personality commits.

Agreed?

If this is equivalent to “YHVH decides what is good and evil,” then I agree. If this is equivalent to “YHVH alone is capable of correctly judging humans,” then I agree.

In this current reality, it is best to accept that such is wrong and requires all due social responsibility to ensure one avoids committing such, as well as looking out for and helping to protect children from such acts.

…

My answer to your question as it stands, would be similar to the bible story and Jesus' answer to the accusers. [John 8] and in that, yes - we do appear to have the need to reevaluate so-called 'acts of evil' as part of the overall process of connection and maintaining communion with the Truth of YHVH.

In John 8, Jesus makes a distinction between condemning someone and telling them to stop sinning (i.e., committing evil) because he tells the woman to stop sinning, while not condemning her. He’s not advocating changing how we view sin, from being evil to being a good (or neutral).

If you are saying that when child abuse leads to someone coming to connect with YHVH (or maintain that connection) that the act is good, then I do regard this as contrary to the teachings of the biblical Jesus. If you aren't saying that, then what are you saying when you talk about changing our concept of evil?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #133]

I was saying that if there were contradictions, that it would be more rational to trust the historical teachings over one’s claims that Jesus has changed his mind and is now teaching such-and-such. I wouldn't have to give actual contradictions for one to assess the truth of this propositional statement. One simply assesses what would follow if there were any actual contradictions.

If there are such contradictions we can address them as they arise.
Re the video RTS I linked and you watched, what did you find in doing so?
Is this something you would regard as 'contrary to the teachings of biblical Jesus?' If so, why?

If you have concerns that ST contradicts the historical teachings, you can bring these to the table and we can discuss these to see IF it is the case.

And I directed you to a verse where alternate experiences are mentioned.
The alternate experiences concur with the overall idea of simulations.

I didn’t say there aren’t alternate experiences. Nor do I know if they concur with the overall idea of simulations. You need to define what you mean by “simulation” for this to go further.

I have already defined simulation adequately and you have agreed with that.

2: Simulation Theory is a valid way to interpret the Biblical stories.

ST is a valid way to interpret alternate experiences, such as the ones mentioned in the Bible...

I will repost that Bible verse I used as one such example. Perhaps we can agree that in future, when either of us post Bible verses as a means of answering a question the other has asked, that these are discussed, rather than ignored/skipped over.

Agreed?

You wrote that the Bible doesn’t address the issue of NDEs at all, and I quoted one script where it does offer something which is exactly the type of thing which is reported by modern humans re NDEs.
Here is the script again;

It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.[2 Corinthians 12]

Do you agree?

Yes, I think God gives life and that a metaphor of this is the breath of YHWH.

Would you say that the whole Garden of Eden story is a metaphor, or do you believe that it actually happened?

What concept do you want us to refer to, at least in this conversation, by the term “soul”? 1, 2, or perhaps (3) the breath of YHWH as a being distinct from YHWH, or (4) something else?

(3) makes no sense to me as there is nothing of life which is distinct from YHVH. The soul is life, and since YHVH is life, the soul is the aspect of YHVH within the living.

Agreed?

Yes, I think God gives life and that a metaphor of this is the breath of YHWH. I think that when God gives life it is the springing forth of an embodied personality. So, there are two ontological beings I’ve mentioned here: (1) God and (2) an embodied personality.

Logically, the personality cannot grow if it has no life. YHVH is LIFE, therefore when YHVH gives life, YHVH is imparting YHVH into the personalities being grown. Without LIFE, how can any personality grow?
[as per (3)

3: YVHV placed humans into this universe to grow personalities.

Further to that, when the LIFE leaves the dead human body, the personality grown through that process, leaves the dominant reality experience the human body-set afforded, and enters into a new experience... as per;

Agreement 6.

6: Human personalities - upon the death of their body-sets - move on to other experiences.

The hebrew term here, ra’ah, has a range of meanings from moral evil to disaster/calamity. It’s like our “bad”.

Let us agree to avoiding semantics.

This is not semantics. It is very important to know if God is talking about creating moral evil or about bringing calamity into one’s life, whether that is through natural “evil” (which, I agree with you, should not be called “evil”)...

If you agree with me on that, then we can discard the idea that YHVH was referring to any natural calamity as being evil.
Therefore we would have to investigate what YHVH was meaning which did not include natural calamity - including the possibility that the author's comprehension of YHVHs activity was misinformed.

or moral evil (like war, rape, etc.).

Is there any Biblical script which verifies that YHVH was directly involved in ordering personalities to war, rape etc?
If so, then we might be able to agree that this was the evil YHVH was claiming to create.

Otherwise we would have to discuss further as to what the author of this script was attempting to convey.

Agreed?

Creating moral evil and creating a system that will allow for moral evil to exist and affect others are two very different things.

We can also discuss this idea to see what critique can be established, after we have found agreement on the question of whether YHVH historically orders personalities to war and rape.

9: It is YHVH alone who makes the call regarding judgement on any evil an individual personality commits.

Agreed?

If this is equivalent to “YHVH decides what is good and evil,” then I agree. If this is equivalent to “YHVH alone is capable of correctly judging humans,” then I agree.

I am thinking that perhaps one of those you meant to write that you disagreed with?

In John 8, Jesus makes a distinction between condemning someone and telling them to stop sinning (i.e., committing evil) because he tells the woman to stop sinning, while not condemning her. He’s not advocating changing how we view sin, from being evil to being a good (or neutral).

I am not convinced that sinning is evil. Rather it is acting on misinformation and therefore missing the mark.

Perhaps evil is better defined as being aware of the misinformation through being made aware of the correct information, and choosing to ignore the correct information in preference to acting with the misinformation.

Sin is simply acting in ignorance, which requires one be made aware in order that one 'sins no more' due to the awareness.

Because ra’ah, has a range of meanings from moral evil to disaster/calamity, there is no distinction which easily can lead to personalities being misinformed.

The story shows us that a law supposedly authored by YHVH allows for personalities to murder adulterers. [Another such law is re the sabbath]
Jesus used the situation to bring informed morality into the minds of those using the law as a means to kill a personality in their society that they considered to being vile/reprehensible etc.
Jesus showed the accusers their own hypocrisy.

As a result, the law was not fulfilled. Jesus showed a way in which the law needn't be administered. A change in the way things could be done.

From this, we can ascertain that is is unlikely YHVH made such a law because YHVH does not change, but such laws can and do change.

At the same time, we can see that the sin is still evident, but the penalty for the sin is not something YHVH imposed, but was something humans imposed in the name of YHVH.

Or.

We can take the position of the Judaist traditionalists of the day, and decide that Jesus was being blasphemous and contrary, and that YHVH did indeed make the penalty of the law, which Jesus publicly opposed.

Or, perhaps there is a third option you can provide as way of explanation.

If you are saying that when child abuse leads to someone coming to connect with YHVH (or maintain that connection) that the act is good, then I do regard this as contrary to the teachings of the biblical Jesus. If you aren't saying that, then what are you saying when you talk about changing our concept of evil?

Is it evil not to keep the Sabbath? If not, then this is what I am saying in all the above I point out. Jesus appears to be showing the folk of that epoch, that they were misinformed. Indeed that they were being misinformed by tradition, rather than informed by truth.

Agreed?

[The Tanager]

If there are such contradictions we can address them as they arise.

Sure, but you asked me how I would know if an NDE was a hallucination, dream, honest mistake, etc. If they logically lead to contradictions, then they aren’t to be trusted.

I have already defined simulation adequately and you have agreed with that.

Where?

Offer scriptural evidence that if NDE teaches contradictory things to Jesus’ historical teachings, that they should be discarded? If so, the Bible doesn’t address the issue of NDEs at all, so this would be an argument from ignorance, from either side.

You wrote that the Bible doesn’t address the issue of NDEs at all, and I quoted one script where it does offer something which is exactly the type of thing which is reported by modern humans re NDEs.

I can understand your confusion there, but that comment was in the context bolded above. In other words, I meant the Bible doesn’t directly respond to this aspect of NDEs in relation to Jesus’ historical teachings and say “trust the teachings over NDEs”. It just wasn’t a question that was asked.

I agree there are “alternative experiences” in the Bible.

Would you say that the whole Garden of Eden story is a metaphor, or do you believe that it actually happened?

I think it could be a poetic retelling of one actual event or a poetic story of the universal human condition to try to create good and evil for ourselves rather than relying on God’s view of good and evil.

(3) makes no sense to me as there is nothing of life which is distinct from YHVH. The soul is life, and since YHVH is life, the soul is the aspect of YHVH within the living.

We should be able to make sense of (1) things with life that are not distinct from YHVH and (2) things with life distinct from YHVH, without answering the question of whether category 2 is an empty set or not.

I do not agree that YHVH is life; I think YHVH gives life (at least somewhat) just as my wife and I gave life to our children. I am not connected to the DNA I gave them anymore, it won’t ever return to me, I can’t experience it from the inside out, so to speak; it’s just a quality transferred from us to them.

Logically, the personality cannot grow if it has no life. YHVH is LIFE, therefore when YHVH gives life, YHVH is imparting YHVH into the personalities being grown. Without LIFE, how can any personality grow?

Thus, the human personality has life to grow.

Further to that, when the LIFE leaves the dead human body, the personality grown through that process, leaves the dominant reality experience the human body-set afforded, and enters into a new experience... as per;

Agreement 6.

Thus, when the body dies, the “life” doesn’t return to God. The personality (which remains alive) either temporarily lives in an unembodied state before returning to a resurrected body-set (the same one for the rest of their existence) or immediately experiences the resurrected body-set (the same one for the rest of their existence).

Therefore we would have to investigate what YHVH was meaning which did not include natural calamity - including the possibility that the author's comprehension of YHVHs activity was misinformed.

I agree. Contextually, the author is talking about Cyrus coming to power and taking over kingdoms through war, (at least in part) to rescue Israel from the Babylonian captivity. That is the darkness and ra’ah YHWH was shaping/creating.

Is there any Biblical script which verifies that YHVH was directly involved in ordering personalities to war, rape etc?
If so, then we might be able to agree that this was the evil YHVH was claiming to create.

I think the language is about God allowing and strengthening Cyrus in his rise to power in order to use him to benefit Israel. To me this doesn’t equate to condoning all such actions, but simply using what humans give him to work towards God’s purposes. I think that is different from ordering personalities to commit moral evils.

If this is equivalent to “YHVH decides what is good and evil,” then I agree. If this is equivalent to “YHVH alone is capable of correctly judging humans,” then I agree.

I am thinking that perhaps one of those you meant to write that you disagreed with?

No, I agree with both. I’ll call these (a) and (b), but I’m throwing in a third comment (which I’ll call x) to perhaps further clarify.

(a) YHVH decides what is truly good and evil for humans. And (x) while humans have insight into what is good and evil (both naturally and through revelation) and, thus, being able to judge specific actions correctly as good and evil (b) we are too limited in our knowledge to try to judge people’s whole lives in that regard.

I am not convinced that sinning is evil. Rather it is acting on misinformation and therefore missing the mark.

Perhaps evil is better defined as being aware of the misinformation through being made aware of the correct information, and choosing to ignore the correct information in preference to acting with the misinformation.

Sin is simply acting in ignorance, which requires one be made aware in order that one 'sins no more' due to the awareness.

Jesus didn’t say she was unaware of her actions.

Because ra’ah, has a range of meanings from moral evil to disaster/calamity, there is no distinction which easily can lead to personalities being misinformed.

The distinction is in the context, which we are responsible to get right instead of seeing if there is enough room to squeeze in a justification for how we got it wrong.

The story shows us that a law supposedly authored by YHVH allows for personalities to murder adulterers. [Another such law is re the sabbath]
Jesus used the situation to bring informed morality into the minds of those using the law as a means to kill a personality in their society that they considered to being vile/reprehensible etc.
Jesus showed the accusers their own hypocrisy.

As a result, the law was not fulfilled. Jesus showed a way in which the law needn't be administered. A change in the way things could be done.

From this, we can ascertain that is is unlikely YHVH made such a law because YHVH does not change, but such laws can and do change.

At the same time, we can see that the sin is still evident, but the penalty for the sin is not something YHVH imposed, but was something humans imposed in the name of YHVH.

Or.

We can take the position of the Judaist traditionalists of the day, and decide that Jesus was being blasphemous and contrary, and that YHVH did indeed make the penalty of the law, which Jesus publicly opposed.

Or, perhaps there is a third option you can provide as way of explanation.

They weren’t concerned with the law. Verse 6 makes clear that they were trying to trap Jesus so they could bring a charge against him. They did this by hyper focusing on a law while missing the mercy spoken of throughout God’s interactions with humans. Jesus was calling them back to that, not changing the message.

Is it evil not to keep the Sabbath? If not, then this is what I am saying in all the above I point out. Jesus appears to be showing the folk of that epoch, that they were misinformed. Indeed that they were being misinformed by tradition, rather than informed by truth.

They were misinterpreting God’s commands about the sabbath. They were calling “evil” what wasn’t ever called “evil” by God. If by changing our concept of evil, you simply mean getting in agreement with what God says is good and evil, then I agree with you. But if you mean that God doesn’t call certain things evil, or that we should reach the point where we don’t think anything is truly evil, then I disagree.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #135]

If there are such contradictions we can address them as they arise.

Sure, but you asked me how I would know if an NDE was a hallucination, dream, honest mistake, etc. If they logically lead to contradictions, then they aren’t to be trusted.

To make sense of that interaction, I would change what you wrote to:

Sure, AS you asked me how I would know if an NDE was a hallucination, dream, honest mistake, etc. If they logically lead to contradictions, then they aren’t to be trusted.

[No 'but' necessary]

The 'but' only comes when any report of alternate experience actually is verified to be in contradiction.

Agreed?

Re that, since you have been asked twice by me about the woman's experience as heard @ the RTS in the video, and have declined to make further comment, can I assume you have no problem with that information as being something which contradicts?

I have already defined simulation adequately and you have agreed with that.

Where?

Throughout our exchanges. Principally in the fact that while you have brought up the argument that anything which contradicts what you refer to as "Traditional Christianity" would be considered questionable by you, there have been no responses of that nature in what I have offered for your consideration and subsequent protest.

Anything which I have offered for you to consider [or which I offer in future discussion here] and which you decline to further comment on, I assume - for that obvious reason, you have no issue with.

I can understand your confusion there, but that comment was in the context bolded above. In other words, I meant the Bible doesn’t directly respond to this aspect of NDEs in relation to Jesus’ historical teachings and say “trust the teachings over NDEs”. It just wasn’t a question that was asked.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

That it wasn't a question that was asked by folk of that epoch, does not mean that folk of our time cannot ask it.
On top of that, we do not know that the question wasn't asked. We only know that there is nothing referred to as Near Death Experience. We also know that the majority of what was imparted by Jesus was not recorded. [John 21:25] but the knowledge that such unrecorded things were imparted, is recorded, so by this - we also should be able to understand that there are things NOT recorded in what we call the Bible, which an individual can be made aware of, in other ways.

Agreed?

The story of the pertinent thief also tells us that - while a question wasn't asked of Jesus re 'the next phase', Jesus gave the thief pertinent information about that anyway.

Agreed?

I agree there are “alternative experiences” in the Bible.

Then can you agree also that there is no need for us to place the phrase in quotation marks, as if there was some issue of doubt about that?

Would you say that the whole Garden of Eden story is a metaphor, or do you believe that it actually happened?

I think it could be a poetic retelling of one actual event or a poetic story of the universal human condition to try to create good and evil for ourselves rather than relying on God’s view of good and evil.

So are you saying that the part of the story which has YHVH instructing Adam, on what NOT to do, is a real event rather than a poetic story?

If so, can you map out and deliver the actual circumstance to which the overall story is a poetic rendition of?

We should be able to make sense of (1) things with life that are not distinct from YHVH and (2) things with life distinct from YHVH, without answering the question of whether category 2 is an empty set or not.

Please do so.

I do not agree that YHVH is life;

John 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with YHVH, and the Word was YHVH.

The same was in the beginning with YHVH.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Please explain why you do not believe that YHVH is life.

I think YHVH gives life (at least somewhat) just as my wife and I gave life to our children. I am not connected to the DNA I gave them anymore, it won’t ever return to me, I can’t experience it from the inside out, so to speak; it’s just a quality transferred from us to them.

You are speaking of the activity/result of reproduction. I am speaking of that which flows as a thread/stream - the life is not what you gave to your children. I do not agree with your conflation.

Logically, the personality cannot grow if it has no life. YHVH is LIFE, therefore when YHVH gives life, YHVH is imparting YHVH into the personalities being grown. Without LIFE, how can any personality grow?

Thus, the human personality has life to grow.

Which is what I am saying when I wrote;

The soul is life, and since YHVH is life, the soul is the aspect of YHVH within the living.

and

Without LIFE, how can any personality grow?

Thus, when the body dies, the “life” doesn’t return to YHVH.

On the contrary. Since YHVH is LIFE, and unchanging, the LIFE never left YHVH at all, so there is no 'returning' involved.
My earlier comment had to do with any soul consigned to a personality.
A personality which is of no use to YHVH and deleted by YHVH.
The soul connected with such a personality, cannot be deleted [because it is of YHVH] but can be used again, in the growing of another personality.

The personality (which remains alive) either temporarily lives in an unembodied state before returning to a resurrected body-set (the same one for the rest of their existence) or immediately experiences the resurrected body-set (the same one for the rest of their existence).

The resurrected body-set implies one gets the same body as one once had. Do you think that would be true?
Or would the body be new - a simulation of the body one did have, but having properties which the former body did not have?

I agree. Contextually, the author is talking about Cyrus coming to power and taking over kingdoms through war, (at least in part) to rescue Israel from the Babylonian captivity. That is the darkness and ra’ah YHWH was shaping/creating.

So we can agree that YHVH inputs into the simulation, anything which YHVH considers justified to further YHVH's agenda?
Would YHVH say something like;

Even when I Am being Bad – I try to be Good about it.

I think the language is about YHVH allowing and strengthening Cyrus in his rise to power in order to use him to benefit Israel. To me this doesn’t equate to condoning all such actions, but simply using what humans give him to work towards YHVH’s purposes. I think that is different from ordering personalities to commit moral evils.

You think that using the evil actions humans do, is not the same as ordering the humans to do evil actions? YHVH uses what is available to shape outcomes which are favorable to the YHVH agenda. [In this case, re benefiting Israel].

(a) YHVH decides what is truly good and evil for humans.

So, it is specific only to what is truly good and evil for humans, and in that you are speaking about human personalities in body-sets yet to die?

And (x) while humans have insight into what is good and evil (both naturally and through revelation) and, thus, being able to judge specific actions correctly as good and evil

Who determines the 'insight'?
How can the insight judge specific actions correctly as good and evil by those without such insight?

(b) we are too limited in our knowledge to try to judge people’s whole lives in that regard.

Therefore, Judging is not appropriate, even to the amount of insight one might have.

Specifical to that, we might agree that using critical thinking, analysis, reasoning and deduction to formulate explanations for things which require discernment re sentient actions, can only go as far as device for helping the individual personality navigate, rather than having the personality form judgements against other sentient actions?

Jesus didn’t say she was unaware of her actions.

Did Jesus say that she was aware of her actions? Does it matter in context to our discussion? The point of the story seems to be that we - as individual personalities - are not in any position to judge others, and should focus upon transforming our own actions/reactions rather than appointing other personalities or appointing ourself to judge others.

Because ra’ah, has a range of meanings from moral evil to disaster/calamity, there is no distinction which easily can lead to personalities being misinformed.

The distinction is in the context, which we are responsible to get right instead of seeing if there is enough room to squeeze in a justification for how we got it wrong.

It is unclear to me what you are attempting to convey here.

They weren’t concerned with the law. Verse 6 makes clear that they were trying to trap Jesus so they could bring a charge against him. They did this by hyper focusing on a law while missing the mercy spoken of throughout YHVH’s interactions with humans. Jesus was calling them back to that, not changing the message.

So then we might agree that whatever it was which performed/performs this "hyper focusing on a law" function is using that to actively work against the individual personality's interactions with YHVH?

They were misinterpreting YHVH’s commands about the sabbath. They were calling “evil” what wasn’t ever called “evil” by YHVH.

And how would they know that this is what they were doing, if they were taught otherwise?
Perhaps from their perspective they were simply using what authority they had, to protect something they considered good, from being corrupted by something they considered evil?

If by changing our concept of evil, you simply mean getting in agreement with what God says is good and evil, then I agree with you.

Yes - that is what I am saying. The question being, that one personality engages with YHVH differently from another personality engaging with YHVH, how are both personalities able to come to the same page?

But if you mean that YHVH doesn’t call certain things evil, ...

What does YHVH call "evil"?

or that we should reach the point where we don’t think anything is truly evil, then I disagree.

What is "truly evil"?

One example you gave was child abuse. We human personalities, in our current temporary positions can announce that such is "truly evil", but - as with the case of the woman in the video - in an alternate reality, the issue appears resolved between her and her grandfather, and the message of that resolution has had the opportunity to be told by the woman to us.

There are many such stories like this, so one is left to discern new information and find reason therein.

Rather than simply say "It does not align with "traditional Christian thinking", therefore is it a deception."
Agreed?

Should we accept that "traditional Christian thinking" knows what YHVH considers good and evil or question such as possibly yet another form of religiosity dressing YHVH up and pointing fingers of accusation at those who do not believe the same?

[The Tanager]

To make sense of that interaction, I would change what you wrote to:

Sure, AS you asked me how I would know if an NDE was a hallucination, dream, honest mistake, etc. If they logically lead to contradictions, then they aren’t to be trusted.

[No 'but' necessary]

The 'but' only comes when any report of alternate experience actually is verified to be in contradiction.

Agreed?

I don’t agree, but I don’t think this is a big deal. I think you simply thought I was addressing a question I was not. You asked me how I would know if an NDE was mistaken. I answered one way was if they lead to logical contradictions. You then faulted me for not offering scriptural evidence and specific examples of NDE contradictions for this answer, which are irrelevant to my claim. Thus, the “but” was warranted.

Re that, since you have been asked twice by me about the woman's experience as heard @ the RTS in the video, and have declined to make further comment, can I assume you have no problem with that information as being something which contradicts?

I asked you a question about what you meant about changing the concept of evil. You offered a GM and a video, asked me to read and watch these, to assist us in this question. I did so, then asked for your response to my question. You gave a response and I responded to it saying:

“If you are saying that when child abuse leads to someone coming to connect with YHVH (or maintain that connection) that the act is good, then I do regard this as contrary to the teachings of the biblical Jesus. If you aren't saying that, then what are you saying when you talk about changing our concept of evil?”

You then talked about Jesus saying the Jews were misinformed about the Sabbath. From that response I then wrote:

“If by changing our concept of evil, you simply mean getting in agreement with what God says is good and evil, then I agree with you. But if you mean that God doesn’t call certain things evil, or that we should reach the point where we don’t think anything is truly evil, then I disagree.”

Throughout our exchanges. Principally in the fact that while you have brought up the argument that anything which contradicts what you refer to as "Traditional Christianity" would be considered questionable by you, there have been no responses of that nature in what I have offered for your consideration and subsequent protest.

Just clearly define simulation again, then. Or quote where you did it earlier. Or tell me what post you did it in. I honestly don’t know what definition of “simulation” you offered and are using beyond it just being a synonym of “creation” which you also haven’t defined as far as I can tell. I’m not playing any games here. I don’t need answers of “I’ve already done it” or “why don’t you know that already”. Just repeat yourself on this for my sake.

That it wasn't a question that was asked by folk of that epoch, does not mean that folk of our time cannot ask it.

Of course.

On top of that, we do not know that the question wasn't asked. We only know that there is nothing referred to as Near Death Experience. We also know that the majority of what was imparted by Jesus was not recorded. [John 21:25] but the knowledge that such unrecorded things were imparted, is recorded, so by this - we also should be able to understand that there are things NOT recorded in what we call the Bible, which an individual can be made aware of, in other ways.

Yes, but we can’t know what those things were. It would be an argument from silence to assume NDEs were discussed. I think we can be certain that what was not recorded would not contradict what was recorded, though.

The story of the pertinent thief also tells us that - while a question wasn't asked of Jesus re 'the next phase', Jesus gave the thief pertinent information about that anyway.

Yes.

Then can you agree also that there is no need for us to place the phrase in quotation marks, as if there was some issue of doubt about that?

The quotation marks are because “alternative experiences” is a very vague phrase that could encompass many different beliefs and I don’t want you to think I’m agreeing with every thing you would think of with that concept.

So are you saying that the part of the story which has YHVH instructing Adam, on what NOT to do, is a real event rather than a poetic story?

If so, can you map out and deliver the actual circumstance to which the overall story is a poetic rendition of?

Why not both? Why not YHVH really has instructed humans (or even an original Adam), but this is a poetic retelling of it? It would map onto a specific time with Adam or all the times with us that we sense what not to do?

We should be able to make sense of (1) things with life that are not distinct from YHVH and (2) things with life distinct from YHVH, without answering the question of whether category 2 is an empty set or not.

Please do so.

Here are two analogical categories:

(1) candies that are M & M candies and (2) candies that are not M & M candies. Two mutually exclusive categories that make sense even if every non M & M candy was destroyed and never made again, thus making (2) an empty set.

(1) Things with life that are not distinct from YHVH and (2) things with life that are distinct from YHVH. Two mutually exclusive categories that make sense even if (2) is an empty set.

I’m not sure why this wouldn’t make sense. Can you help me see what part doesn’t make sense to you, if it still doesn’t?

John 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with YHVH, and the Word was YHVH.

The same was in the beginning with YHVH.

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Please explain why you do not believe that YHVH is life.

I don’t see any reason (Biblical or otherwise) to believe YHVH is life. What you just quoted says that in the Word (Jesus) was life. It doesn’t say Jesus or YHVH is life at all, but especially in the sense of residing in all individuals who live.

You are speaking of the activity/result of reproduction. I am speaking of that which flows as a thread/stream - the life is not what you gave to your children. I do not agree with your conflation.

I wasn’t just talking about reproduction, but using that as an analogy. The life my children received from me is separate from me in the sense that it’s not me, my consciousness isn’t inside of it, I don’t control it, etc.

My earlier comment had to do with any soul consigned to a personality.
A personality which is of no use to YHVH and deleted by YHVH.
The soul connected with such a personality, cannot be deleted [because it is of YHVH] but can be used again, in the growing of another personality.

Yes, I know that is your belief. It is not mine. If you want to make a case for your belief, then go for it.

The resurrected body-set implies one gets the same body as one once had. Do you think that would be true?
Or would the body be new - a simulation of the body one did have, but having properties which the former body did not have?

I don’t think a resurrected body implies getting the same body in the sense you seem to mean here, namely, that it has no new properties.

Neither do I know what it means to be a “simulation” of one’s previous body. If you would define simulation clearly (again because I missed, forgotten, misunderstood, whatever), then I could have something concrete to respond to there.

So we can agree that YHVH inputs into the simulation, anything which YHVH considers justified to further YHVH's agenda?

Putting aside “simulation” for now, yes, YHVH would act in ways YHVH feels justified in doing towards YHVH’s agenda. But the textual issue we were talking about is whether Isaiah 45 says YHVH performs moral evil.

You think that using the evil actions humans do, is not the same as ordering the humans to do evil actions?

Correct.

So, it is specific only to what is truly good and evil for humans, and in that you are speaking about human personalities in body-sets yet to die?

Yes, but that doesn’t change from human to human. I think it is situational, but the same for all humans in a specific situation.

Who determines the 'insight'?
How can the insight judge specific actions correctly as good and evil by those without such insight?

What do you mean “who determines the insight?” What determines who gets the insight? What determines which insight is correct? Something else?

And what do you mean by the insight judging those without such insight? Do you mean what about those who act in true ignorance? Something else?

Therefore, Judging is not appropriate, even to the amount of insight one might have.

Judging a specific person’s relationship with YHVH is inappropriate. Judging what things would definitely be a part of such a relationship (or not be a part of it) is appropriate, if done so on solid grounds.

Specifical to that, we might agree that using critical thinking, analysis, reasoning and deduction to formulate explanations for things which require discernment re sentient actions, can only go as far as device for helping the individual personality navigate, rather than having the personality form judgements against other sentient actions?

I don’t agree with that. I think we must form judgments against, at least some, actions. Like child abuse.

Did Jesus say that she was aware of her actions? Does it matter in context to our discussion? The point of the story seems to be that we - as individual personalities - are not in any position to judge others, and should focus upon transforming our own actions/reactions rather than appointing other personalities or appointing ourself to judge others.

Why would Jesus tell her to sin no more, if she wasn’t aware that her actions were sinful?

As to the point of the story, I don’t think it could be about judging the actions of others because Jesus teaches (Matt 7) that once we have taken the log out of our own eye, we can see more clearly the speck in our brothers and sisters’ eyes. I think the point of the story is about showing mercy to others because we need mercy shown to us. Jesus tells her to sin no more, he still judges her actions, but does so in a merciful way.

The distinction is in the context, which we are responsible to get right instead of seeing if there is enough room to squeeze in a justification for how we got it wrong.

It is unclear to me what you are attempting to convey here.

I was saying that we can know which part of the range of meanings ra’ah is referring to in Isaiah 45 by looking at the context and, therefore, there is a distinction which easily leads people away from being misinformed, although one (I wasn’t saying you or anyone specific, I even do at times) can try to read passages so as to justify what they want something to say and claim they were just honestly misinformed.

So then we might agree that whatever it was which performed/performs this "hyper focusing on a law" function is using that to actively work against the individual personality's interactions with YHVH?

If I understand you correctly (i.e., those individuals were working against the truth of YHVH by their actions), then I agree.

And how would they know that this is what they were doing, if they were taught otherwise?
Perhaps from their perspective they were simply using what authority they had, to protect something they considered good, from being corrupted by something they considered evil?

Yes, but we have a limited, power-hungry perspective and, so, should not work from our perspective but seek God’s perspective. We must continually question the teachings we’ve bought into, what we grew up in, what we want to be true, etc.

Yes - that is what I am saying. The question being, that one personality engages with YHVH differently from another personality engaging with YHVH, how are both personalities able to come to the same page?

But in differently engaging with the same constant One, in conforming ourselves to YHVH’s wisdom in how to live, wouldn’t this show itself in our different selves coming to the same page on a lot of stuff. Not necessarily how we do it, for there is still creativity and uniqueness, but we would have a basic unity.

What does YHVH call "evil"?

I’m open to further discussing this, but I think it’s going to include things like ignoring each other, taking advantage of each other, using each other as means instead of ends in themselves, of murdering, of abusing, etc.

One example you gave was child abuse. We human personalities, in our current temporary positions can announce that such is "truly evil", but - as with the case of the woman in the video - in an alternate reality, the issue appears resolved between her and her grandfather, and the message of that resolution has had the opportunity to be told by the woman to us.

But for it to be resolved means there was a problem that needed resolving. The relationship may be restored, but that doesn’t mean the act of child abuse was not evil.

Rather than simply say "It does not align with "traditional Christian thinking", therefore is it a deception."

I have never used this argument by itself. I have said that if NDEs contradict Jesus’ teaching, then one should side with Jesus’ teaching, but this is because of all the reason I feel is behind the truth of Christianity. It would take an abundance of evidence supporting the NDE to sway the balances to the other side, when what is usually offered is simply, “this was my experience”.

Should we accept that "traditional Christian thinking" knows what YHVH considers good and evil or question such as possibly yet another form of religiosity dressing YHVH up and pointing fingers of accusation at those who do not believe the same?

We should question everything. Many Christians, modern and throughout history, did just that, but I believe that Biblical teaching isn’t just dressing YHVH up, but following YHVH’s wisdom in both what is good and evil as well living out of the merciful heart of God. Christianity isn’t about being the ones that have it all right, but being messed up ones who are experiencing YHVH cleaning us up from the inside out and inviting others to be in that same journey alongside us.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #137]

I don’t agree, but I don’t think this is a big deal. I think you simply thought I was addressing a question I was not. You asked me how I would know if an NDE was mistaken. I answered one way was if they lead to logical contradictions. You then faulted me for not offering scriptural evidence and specific examples of NDE contradictions for this answer, which are irrelevant to my claim. Thus, the “but” was warranted.

Okay.

So that is your standard of approach based upon your trust in Christian Tradition - whatever that is...
So we should be able to agree that if there is no contradiction that you can identify in the relaying of information to do with alternate experiences, therefore, these are acceptable witness.

Just clearly define simulation again, then. Or quote where you did it earlier. Or tell me what post you did it in. I honestly don’t know what definition of “simulation” you offered and are using beyond it just being a synonym of “creation” which you also haven’t defined as far as I can tell. I’m not playing any games here. I don’t need answers of “I’ve already done it” or “why don’t you know that already”. Just repeat yourself on this for my sake.

Rather, I think it more prudent to continue on as I am, and offer what I do for your consideration. I do not think we are speaking about different things, but about the same thing, differently.
You still haven't explained what you mean by 'other creation theories' which you think do not include the idea of simulation theory, so that adds to my thinking we are likely talking about the same thing.

Yes, but we can’t know what those things were. It would be an argument from silence to assume NDEs were discussed.

Considering that alternate experiences have been around as long as human personalities have, including those many recorded in the Bible - it would be a travesty of sorts to disregard the stories as having not been spoken of, by those who experienced them and pass the information along to those who have not.

I think we can be certain that what was not recorded would not contradict what was recorded, though.

That would depend on what the contradiction was - and since we have no examples to date, all we can do is agree that if or when such arise - such can be discussed to ascertain whether the contradiction is real or imagined.

The quotation marks are because “alternative experiences” is a very vague phrase that could encompass many different beliefs and I don’t want you to think I’m agreeing with every thing you would think of with that concept.

Alternate experiences are anything which is extra to ordinary ones and in that, can be many and varied. What types of alternate experiences would you have others think of as 'not alternate'?

So are you saying that the part of the story which has YHVH instructing Adam, on what NOT to do, is a real event rather than a poetic story?

If so, can you map out and deliver the actual circumstance to which the overall story is a poetic rendition of?

Why not both?

If so, then why make any distinctions? They are simply different methodologies...

Why not YHVH really has instructed humans (or even an original Adam), but this is a poetic retelling of it? It would map onto a specific time with Adam or all the times with us that we sense what not to do?

What is this 'sense of what not to do'? This supposes that the individual personality can hear YHVH's voice. Is this something you believe is the case?

(1) candies that are M & M candies and (2) candies that are not M & M candies. Two mutually exclusive categories that make sense even if every non M & M candy was destroyed and never made again, thus making (2) an empty set.

(1) Things with life that are not distinct from YHVH and (2) things with life that are distinct from YHVH. Two mutually exclusive categories that make sense even if (2) is an empty set.

I’m not sure why this wouldn’t make sense. Can you help me see what part doesn’t make sense to you, if it still doesn’t?

Perhaps first, if you drop the candies analogy and adopt the human personality? Some personalities are useful to YHVH while other are not?

But, yes. I am presently unclear as to what you are attempting to convey there.

I don’t see any reason (Biblical or otherwise) to believe YHVH is life. What you just quoted says that in the Word (Jesus) was life. It doesn’t say Jesus or YHVH is life at all, but especially in the sense of residing in all individuals who live.

One leads to the other. We appear to walk different paths on this subject.

I wasn’t just talking about reproduction, but using that as an analogy.

I know this. I am saying that your analogy is incorrect because it attempts to identify the life that YHVH gives, as nothing more able, than human reproduction process.
Whereas, the soul as a helper to the individual personality cannot be seen in the same analogy - just as who you are, is missing from who your children are.
With YHVH, this is not the case.
What is missing, is simply the way in which the individual personality self identifies, just as your children do not self identify with you. You cannot give them what YHVH gives us, and when we learn to self identify as not just being the personality, but also being the soul, we level up in regard to that information, rather than continue to view ourselves as the body-set, and that alone.

So the idea is that we all have an aspect of YHVH {LIFE} and are required through our circumstance to learn to identify with the Soul rather than only with the body-set and we do this through realization and the acknowledgment assists with the leveling-up process.

The life my children received from me is separate from me in the sense that it’s not me, my consciousness isn’t inside of it, I don’t control it, etc.

Apparently, that is how you understand YHVH in relation to the personalities that YHVH grows. From my understanding, YHVH sees what the individual personality grown, does - not just through outside observation, but through the direct ability to see through the eyes and experience of the individual personality, and that is one of the functions of the soul by which YHVH is able to achieve this.

This is not about 'control' or being controlled, but about realization which greatly helps the individual understand themselves as YHVH wants them to, and why YHVH grows human personalities with this potential in mind.

YHVH can be both the silent watcher AND the interactive interface involved with the experiences the personality has, both the normal ones and the alternate ones.

What is there not to appreciate in knowing/understanding that?

Yes, I know that is your belief. It is not mine. If you want to make a case for your belief, then go for it.

It is not something which one personality can 'make a case for' to another personality, any more than a theist can show a non-theist "God". It does not work like that Tanager.
This is why there are alternate experiences - so that those who have them can tell others those things experience but - in the telling - whether biblical or through other means, those hearing can either seek the same from YHVH, or reject the witness due to their own beliefs and grow no further than such rejection permits them.

My own experiences are not beliefs. They simply happened and I deal with them as actual happenings and cannot make any case for you to accept against the beliefs you have.

The best I can do is to advise that if you want to know for yourself and experience alternative things, that you suspend your beliefs and simply ask YHVH to show you for yourself. That way, it is YHVH rather than some other personality or tradition, who will make a case for which you can then accept or reject as you please.

Agreed?

I don’t think a resurrected body implies getting the same body in the sense you seem to mean here, namely, that it has no new properties.

That would be a reasonable conclusion, I agree. I have not mentioned any properties - only that it is not the same body-set as one once had.

Neither do I know what it means to be a “simulation” of one’s previous body. If you would define simulation clearly (again because I missed, forgotten, misunderstood, whatever), then I could have something concrete to respond to there.

So, while resurrection might seem to imply "the same body" it really means a simulation of the body-set one once adorned, with way more useful attributes than the previous one.

Putting aside “simulation” for now, yes, YHVH would act in ways YHVH feels justified in doing towards YHVH’s agenda. But the textual issue we were talking about is whether Isaiah 45 says YHVH performs moral evil.

Even if YHVH chooses to withhold pertinent information from one individual personality, or reveal to another individual personality the pertinent information withheld from the other, no moral evil is done by YHVH. No foul has been done.

In the same way, no foul was done by YHVH by withholding pertinent information from Adam even that the information could have helped Adam resist temptation.
Therefore, according to YHVH's agenda, while the withholding of information didn't help Adam resist temptation, nor did it prevent YHVH's agenda from being enacted.

Yes, but that doesn’t change from human to human. I think it is situational, but the same for all humans in a specific situation.

Ultimately then, YHVH's agenda continues regardless of whether humans understand good or evil the way YHVH understands it, or not.

Those personalities which grow to realize this as true, are useful to YHVH in that capacity - even more so, than those personalities who do not.

Agreed?

What do you mean “who determines the insight?” What determines who gets the insight? What determines which insight is correct? Something else?

And what do you mean by the insight judging those without such insight? Do you mean what about those who act in true ignorance? Something else?

I will answer my own questions then, and perhaps in doing so, you will have your answers too.

Q: Who determines the 'insight'?
A: The individual personality + YHVH.

Q: How can the insight judge specific actions correctly as good and evil by those without such insight?
A: The individual personality in relationship with YHVH, leaves such judgement to YHVH.

This may also include the individual personality in relationship with YHVH, being prompted by YHVH to "ignore the noise from the peanut gallery" and simply get about strengthening the relationship without allowing the additional noise becoming a distracting influence working against that process.

Agreed?

Therefore, Judging is not appropriate, even to the amount of insight one might have.

Judging a specific person’s relationship with YHVH is inappropriate.

Agreed.

Judging what things would definitely be a part of such a relationship (or not be a part of it) is appropriate, if done so on solid grounds.

When such 'solid grounds' are established in the course of personality to personality interaction [such as our present one] these can be examined accordingly.

Agreed?

Specifical to that, we might agree that using critical thinking, analysis, reasoning and deduction to formulate explanations for things which require discernment re sentient actions, can only go as far as device for helping the individual personality navigate, rather than having the personality form judgements against other sentient actions?

I don’t agree with that. I think we must form judgments against, at least some, actions. Like child abuse.

What would you or I know of other folks actions that YHVH would not? Nothing. Certainly nothing of any value in being able to make correct judgment.

Agreed?

Said the other way;

What would YHVH know about the intricacies of other folks actions, that we would not be privey to?

Everything.

Agreed?

What are we left with as individual personalities?

On the subject of child abuse, we learn to understand what that means from the perspective of the simulation we are experiencing and abstain from any such practice, by acknowledging that to do so, isn't going to be helpful to our own growth and communion with YHVH.

Why would Jesus tell her to sin no more, if she wasn’t aware that her actions were sinful?

Why do you think Jesus would withhold such advise, just because she may have been ignorant to that point?

What does "sin" do, that such advise needn't be offered? For starters, it allows for the judgmental to thrown stones - so even to that end, the advice is pertinent. Avoid the noise from the peanut gallery...avoid the judgmental, wherever possible.

As to the point of the story, I don’t think it could be about judging the actions of others because Jesus teaches (Matt 7) that once we have taken the log out of our own eye, we can see more clearly the speck in our brothers and sisters’ eyes.

It may be that Christian Tradition tells it that way, but could it be that the "seeing clearly" has to do with understanding that one is not the judge, and therefore it is pertinent NOT to do so?
This is helpful in relation to convincing [without being judgmental about it] those who still have the log in their eye, that it needs removing so that they have opportunity to clearly discern their own hypocrisy.

I think the point of the story is about showing mercy to others because we need mercy shown to us.

I can agree that this is an aspect of the story, but not its sole/whole point.

Agreed?

Jesus tells her to sin no more, he still judges her actions, but does so in a merciful way.

I do not think that Jesus was being judgmental, but even supposing he was, this does not give you or I or anyone else license to do so, even that Christian Tradition might teach it that way.

That - imo - is the whole point of that story, and other stories as well.

I was saying that we can know which part of the range of meanings ra’ah is referring to in Isaiah 45 by looking at the context and, therefore, there is a distinction which easily leads people away from being misinformed, although one (I wasn’t saying you or anyone specific, I even do at times) can try to read passages so as to justify what they want something to say and claim they were just honestly misinformed.

I can accept that folk'll do that when it suits their personal agenda. I refrain from thinking that you or I are doing this.
To add more flavor to that, my mentioning of it has to do with another thread I created and called "The problem of evil" where the OPQ went as follows;

Q: Is the statement "Then there is "The problem of evil"" one of fact or conjecture? [science or opinion] In realty, does such a problem actually exist?
The problem of evil refers to the challenge of reconciling belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. eta:{SOURCE}

Part of my reasoning is as follows;

This thread assumes the premise of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient Source-GOD, with regard to the challenge of reconciling such a GOD, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. [aka the so-called "Problem of Evil".]

Logically IF an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient Source-GOD exists/is real, THEN evil existing must be a temporary aspect of this particular collective human experience - something we are necessarily going through rather than something which will be unnecessarily permanent.

The "problem" is only so, in relation to those who need reasons to avoid personal contact with said Source-GOD on the grounds that to do so would sully their sense of ethics, and they would rather believe such a being - along with all other Gods - does not exist.

Thus, the "problem" exists only in the minds of those with the problem, and the problem itself is illusion/delusion.

My conclusion on the so-called problem is in answer to this comment - from another;

The problems caused by evil, as a valid problem even if not a real thing existing apart from humans, remain, and are still a problem for humans, though not a problem for a god, nor caused by one.

My Conclusion: Therefore, the challenge of reconciling belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God, with the existence of evil and suffering in the world, is illusionary.
_________

In our ongoing conversation here in this thread, it appears to me that you too, would agree with my conclusion.

Do you agree?

If so, then we need not debate this particular issue any further and can add to our list of agreement.

"YHVH does not practice evil"

Agreed?

So then we might agree that whatever it was which performed/performs this "hyper focusing on a law" function is using that to actively work against the individual personality's interactions with YHVH?

If I understand you correctly (i.e., those individuals were working against the truth of YHVH by their actions), then I agree.

Then we can add that to our agreement list. Those who act against the agenda of YHVH, accuse YHVH of being evil.

Agreed?

Yes, but we have a limited, power-hungry perspective and, so, should not work from our perspective but seek God’s perspective. We must continually question the teachings we’ve bought into, what we grew up in, what we want to be true, etc.

Agreed. YHVH teaches the individual how not to be power-hungry and limited by showing them YHVHs perspective.

Agreed?

Yes - that is what I am saying. The question being, that one personality engages with YHVH differently from another personality engaging with YHVH, how are both personalities able to come to the same page?

But in differently engaging with the same constant One, in conforming ourselves to YHVH’s wisdom in how to live, wouldn’t this show itself in our different selves coming to the same page on a lot of stuff. Not necessarily how we do it, for there is still creativity and uniqueness, but we would have a basic unity.

Would you agree that our growing list of agreement, confirms in a practical manner, that such is possible to achieve?

What does YHVH call "evil"?

I’m open to further discussing this, but I think it’s going to include things like ignoring each other, taking advantage of each other, using each other as means instead of ends in themselves, of murdering, of abusing, etc.

Okay. Perhaps those insights come naturally to those who are in genuine relationship with YHVH and recognize the similarity while also acknowledging the unique.

Agreed?

But for it to be resolved means there was a problem that needed resolving. The relationship may be restored, but that doesn’t mean the act of child abuse was not evil.

Since we do not know the details, but are made aware of the outcome, we can accept humbly that we do not need to know the details in order to accept that YHVH has dealt with it as per the outcome.

What the outcome does reveal, is that we can trust YHVH's knowing the details and acting in wisdom beyond our abilities to know or correctly judge, so we can do without the burden of being judgmental and adopt the passion of loving-kindness as the far less burden to bear.

Agreed?

Rather than simply say "It does not align with "traditional Christian thinking", therefore is it a deception."

I have never used this argument by itself. I have said that if NDEs contradict Jesus’ teaching, then one should side with Jesus’ teaching, but this is because of all the reason I feel is behind the truth of Christianity. It would take an abundance of evidence supporting the NDE to sway the balances to the other side, when what is usually offered is simply, “this was my experience”.

Ask YHVH and it will be given to you. Then you will not have to doubt the words of others which give an appearance of contradicting the Christian Tradition you believe in.

What might occur though, is that when YHVH gives you what you ask for [evidence], it might be contradictory to tradition? I do not know, because I am unaware of what the tradition it is that you currently believe in or why you think alternate experience conflicts with that.

Should we accept that "traditional Christian thinking" knows what YHVH considers good and evil or question such as possibly yet another form of religiosity dressing YHVH up and pointing fingers of accusation at those who do not believe the same?

We should question everything.

Including this Christian Tradition you speak of?

Many Christians, modern and throughout history, did just that, but I believe that Biblical teaching isn’t just dressing YHVH up, but following YHVH’s wisdom in both what is good and evil as well living out of the merciful heart of God. Christianity isn’t about being the ones that have it all right, but being messed up ones who are experiencing YHVH cleaning us up from the inside out and inviting others to be in that same journey alongside us.

Yeah...it is that "from the inside out" that I see as YHVH working through us and seeing our experience from the same perspective as we also see it - rather than only from an objective perspective.

Knowing such, makes all the difference re that connection and subsequent realization.

In relation to asking YHVH - what that does is allow for YHVH to show the individual personality something of "seeing things from YHVHs perspective" - as in with OOBEs/alternative experiences et al. YHVH is capable of taking the individual personality into alternate experiences, by means of The Soul - acting as a carrier for the personality, just as the body set is a carrier for the personality and the Soul attached to said personality.

I can only point to YHVH and advise that one asks YHVH. I cannot provide anyone evidence of it's actuality. I can object to critique that what YHVH gives me as experience, has to be seen as lies, misinformation, misunderstanding, delusion, hallucination and those other things you have mentioned as "possible explanations". I can treat such objections as simply "noise from the peanut gallery" made by those who have yet to experience things which YHVH is able to gift the individual personality which humbly asks...

_______________

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #138]

I’m trying to truncate things again, but let me know what I’ve misunderstood or missed.

On personal experience, beliefs, and making a case

This has always confused me in our interactions. You say you have experiences, not beliefs and, therefore, you can’t make a case for beliefs but just invite me to be open to experiences. Yet you do form beliefs about reality through those experiences, you often share them here, critique my beliefs that disagree, and make cases for yours and against mine. Sometimes your support is simply “this is my experience,” but sometimes you do make arguments appealing to logic. Then, it seems, when someone isn’t convinced by your reasoning, you sometimes fall back on “I’m not trying to make a case”. I think everyone has beliefs and in conversations like we have on this board, cases are always made. There is nothing wrong with this.

Now, what about those beliefs that are only supported by “I had a personal experience that convinced me of its truth”?

On the personal level, I think you are warranted to believe X unless other evidence (from the whole web of beliefs about reality) counters it. This is a general statement; I’m not making a judgment about any specific beliefs.

On the person-to-person level, I do not think personal experience is a valid warrant for the other person to believe X, unless they knew you so well, including before the supposed experience, that they had more reason to trust you to tell the truth over alternative possibilities that could explain your personal experience. But even then, they would only be warranted in trusting your personal experience unless other evidence (from the whole web of beliefs about reality) counters it.

So, on your specific experiences and the beliefs you have formed from them, I’m not saying they are lies, misinformation, etc. but that they could be. I don’t know you well enough to trust your belief about (for example) what GMs show us over believing they are random arrangements of pre-determined information that you provide and then read back out of it. On top of that, the whole web of informed beliefs I have about reality seem to contradict it, so I don’t think I am warranted in agreeing with your belief there.

I do also think that that whole web of informed beliefs is objective enough to counter the warrant from personal experience you have (which I don’t have). But you feel differently and I may change my mind one day. We both should always be open and questioning and testing the beliefs we hold. I am certainly open to continually challenging my beliefs, which currently fall under the category of traditional Christianity, evangelical Christianity, and other helpful to an extent labels that people would rightly place me under. I am also open to personal experiences with YHVH, believing I have such experiences, although they aren’t NDEs or some of the things you might consider “alternative experiences” [more on what those are in a little bit].

I believe we agree on a lot of stuff, but not enough to both be united under the same YHVH. Even if what you believe is true and this stage I’m in is one stage on my journey, we simply aren’t currently on the same page concerning reality in vital areas. That doesn’t mean our relationship is not worth pursuing and challenging each other in love for the other. I do hope you hear that heart from me.


On ‘simulation’ and ‘alternate experiences’

I cannot explain what I mean by “other creation theories” until I know what you mean by “simulation”. I had a concept attached to “simulation” that appears to be different than how you are using it, but it’s still vague to me exactly what you mean by it. Unless your ‘simulation’ is just a synonym of creation, by which I would drop that there are “other creation theories”.

So, while resurrection might seem to imply "the same body" it really means a simulation of the body-set one once adorned, with way more useful attributes than the previous one.

Without knowing what you mean by “simulation,” I cannot agree or disagree with this statement.

In like fashion, I don’t know what you mean by ‘ordinary experiences’ or ‘alternate experiences’ and, so, I wasn’t making a claim about what counts as alternate or ordinary and I can’t answer many of the things you asked me about alternate experiences.


On YHVH being life

At one point you seemed to say this was the only possibility. I didn’t agree. One element of that involved me making a point about the existence of mutually exclusive categories. Either something is X or not X. Either some candy is M & Ms or they are not. Either things are life distinct from YHVH or they are not distinct from YHVH. These categories all exist whether or not one of those categories has no members. This categorization doesn’t answer the question of whether YHVH is life in a synonymous sense.

If your view is true, you rightly pointed out a problem I see with it. If YHVH being life is equivalent to YHVH influencing but not deciding things for the personality, then we are agreed that this isn’t YHVH controlling us. If YHVH decides “choices” the personality makes, then we disagree. If it is this latter option, negating the personality’s free agency is something not to appreciate because free will is a good; it’s better than an enslaved will.


On insight and judgment

We seem to agree that insight comes from an interaction between YHVH and the individual personality. Once we have an insight into moral evil, following YHVH’s judgment, we logically have a judgment. That is what the insight is. Concerning what the insight is, we are privy to enough of the intricacies or it wouldn’t be insight.

This insight is primarily for us, but we are also called to love others. Loving others means wishing they wouldn’t experience and choose moral evil because of how it hurts them and others. I don’t think we should go around telling everyone that such-and-such is wrong and all of that Bible-bashing stereotype, but that we should live lives of love that, naturally, will result in people asking us our views. We should share those views in truth, but also in mercy and humility.

Jesus does this with the woman. He tells her to turn from her sins, but does so in love and mercy. Jesus certainly has more authority to speak into the lives of people about their sins than us, but I also believe Jesus speaks and works through his “body”, the Church (which isn’t the same as Christendom, but exists within Christendom). As a Christian, of course, this is how I think one is able to be in relationship with YHVH, through identifying with Jesus and what He does in us.

I think this same approach is taught in Matthew 7.

It may be that Christian Tradition tells it that way, but could it be that the "seeing clearly" has to do with understanding that one is not the judge, and therefore it is pertinent NOT to do so?
This is helpful in relation to convincing [without being judgmental about it] those who still have the log in their eye, that it needs removing so that they have opportunity to clearly discern their own hypocrisy.

It doesn’t make sense for Jesus to be teaching that we should understand we are not the judge and to not judge, but then tell us to take the speck out of our brother’s eye. This passage is about not being a hypocrite and judging out of a merciful love instead of the way people were judging others, just like in John 8. This is what it means to not be judgmental, yet still help those who have a speck in their eye, which requires judging the speck as a speck which doesn’t belong. It’s the difference between seeking wholeness (which requires insight and judgment) and seeking to be right, better than, etc. (being judgmental).

What the outcome does reveal, is that we can trust YHVH's knowing the details and acting in wisdom beyond our abilities to know or correctly judge, so we can do without the burden of being judgmental and adopt the passion of loving-kindness as the far less burden to bear.

Even this is a judgment. You are calling what you think is a speck a speck. I agree with this judgment, but I don’t think it contradicts calling other specks specks and acting in loving kindness towards them.

On the subject of child abuse, we learn to understand what that means from the perspective of the simulation we are experiencing and abstain from any such practice, by acknowledging that to do so, isn't going to be helpful to our own growth and communion with YHVH.

Which is judging child abuse as a moral evil. Even if the experience of abusing a child and reconciling later causes the individual to find YHVH and seek to make things right, the act of child abuse was still evil and not a necessary path to finding YHVH.

On the problem of evil, I agree it is usually focused on the consistency of the existence of evil with an omni-God. Even with the impermanence of evil, I think this is still a “problem” for those who aren’t trying to avoid personal contact with this omni-God that deserves exploration and explanation. The problem isn’t an illusion. I think there are good explanations of that, for Christianity at least.

But the existence of evil is a problem every worldview has to deal with. It’s a problem for atheism because without an objective ontological source of good, there can be no such thing as “evil,” as evil would simply be a mask for “what I don’t want” and we would only have competing wants, not one want being an objective evil and another want being an objective good.

Regardless of that, we agree that YHVH doesn’t practice evil.


On the garden story

I’m not sure what distinctions I made that you think I shouldn’t (you said “they are simply different methodologies”).

I do not think our “sense of what not to do” supposes hearing YHVH’s audible voice, if you mean that. I don’t hear an audible voice, but believe I can often sense when something is clearly YHVH’s voice in my head (so to speak) versus my own.

I also do not think YHVH withheld any pertinent information in this story. Adam and Eve had everything they needed to resist temptation.

Ultimately then, YHVH's agenda continues regardless of whether humans understand good or evil the way YHVH understands it, or not.

Those personalities which grow to realize this as true, are useful to YHVH in that capacity - even more so, than those personalities who do not.

I think this story shows that YHVH’s agenda is that people would understand good and evil the way YHVH understands it (and act on it). Thus, YHVH’s agenda couldn’t continue regardless of whether humans understand it (and act on it).

[William]

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.