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/

[William]

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).

By YHVH's agenda, I am saying "What YHVH wants" in relation to "What YHVH can do" and re the existence of the Physical Universe we experience as real, there are things which can be done by YHVH, without human personalities being involved.

Q: Of what use are human personalities in regard to this particular universe?

We have agreed that human personalities are useful to YHVH, which is why they are grown.
We can see to some degree that these personalities do interact with the universe and are specifically able to create devices in which to make something deemed good by YHVH, easier to work with so that it becomes good for human personalities as well - and the evidence of this progress can be observed.

Tanager: I don’t think our connection with YHWH was the only purpose of creation, either.

viewtopic.php?p=1095666#p1095666

Tanager: My belief system is simply the collection of my opinions.

viewtopic.php?p=1096043#p1096043

On personal experience, beliefs, and making a case

Personal experiences are subjective.
Non-theists will argue that subjective experience counts for nothing. Do you agree with non-theists?

Making a case is about presenting evidence which explains personal experience. Beliefs are simply unsupported opinions about personal experience.

I believe we agree on a lot of stuff, but not enough to both be united under the same YHVH.

There is only ONE YHVH.

Agreed?

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 ‘simulation’ and ‘alternate experiences’

I don’t know what you mean by ‘ordinary experiences’ or ‘alternate experiences’

Ordinary experiences would include, not having the ability to walk on water, walk through walls, appear and disappear before witnesses, ascending out into the clouds without the use of any obvious apparatus, having visions, et al...

Alternate experiences would include - but not be limited to - experiencing those things mentioned.

On YHVH being life

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.

Are you saying that one who's will is connected with the will of YHVH, is/would be enslaved?

As an example, some Christians claim to be slaves of Christ. Is this something you would argue is "not good"?
Let me presume you would never argue that.
Then I am left to wonder, what it is you are arguing...

Do slaves of Christ have no free will? Or is it more a case that they have invested their free will into the realization that YHVH's will is the better way in which a human personality can use their will, and in doing so, pretty much renounce their own personal use of said free will, in favor of saying, “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” signifying that they acknowledge that if they used their free will for their own choice, they would choose differently than YHVH, and thus, a will enslaved to YHVH is the better choice.

Agreed?

On insight and judgment

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.

I agree. In agreeing I have to conclude that Jesus is not conflating using discernment with being Judgmental.

Agreed?

On the garden story

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

Do you think Adam knew WHY it was important to trust in YHVH's word?

If so, please show us in the story, where Adam knew why it was important.

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).

YHVH has always understood YHVH's self and why YHVH understands good and evil the way YHVH does.

Agreed?

Thus, YHVH’s agenda couldn’t continue regardless of whether humans understand it (and act on it).

This statement requires more content for it to be understood re the statement prior to it.

On Generated Messages:

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 have no particular belief about why the GMs form as they do. I look to the science for answers - not to prop up beliefs you appear to think I have about said process.

I do not know why they work as they do - but I am able to ascertain that it must have something to do with YHVH as I understand YHVH to being the principle mind behind this simulated reality I am experiencing with you.

I do not know how the GM predicted that the subject of child abuse would be brought up in our conversation before you brought it up, except that if YHVH exists then it makes perfect sense.

Not only did the GM predict what came about, but it also offered reasons for WHY the woman in the video met her grandfather in an alternate experience and experienced knowing that all was good between her and granddad... - let me quote that GM again to show what it is I tell.

As in, abusing a child is not really evil and we need to see that, and every act, as good? If not, what do you mean in changing the concept of evil?

To assist us in answering the question, I bring to your attention a snip from the most recent GM [Fri Oct 28, 2022 12:56 pm]

GM: Brother
Concision
The Right Tool For The Job
Incorporate
The Life Essence
Coordinate Forgiveness
Original
Epiphany [a moment of sudden and great revelation or realization.]
The Dolphins And Whales
Getting unstuck
According
[Woman Crosses Over and Gets Told Our Role on Earth (Near Death Experience)] [RTS=9:00]

William: Forgiveness -
Incorporate The Life Essence, Coordinate Forgiveness = 512
Superposition - Being aware of Human Control Dramas = 512

GM: A very useful fiction
Two seemingly contradictory things working as one overall organized thing.
Communication With The Deeper Levels of Self
The Shadow
Develop a basic, fact-based view first and then ask the question.
Radiate Honesty {SOURCE}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.

YHVH and other humans are the other helpers.

Yes. In this case YHVH assisting in helping you and I come to agreement, also [potentially] through the woman in the video sharing her experience with us.

Certainly, for me - the GM process.

{SOURCE}

Now - to assist the readers understanding re my own understanding of what the GM was expressing;

Brother [me/you]
Concision [advice in how I am best to proceed]
The Right Tool For The Job [advice in how I am best to proceed]
Incorporate [advice in how I am best to proceed]
The Life Essence [YHVH [advice in how I am best to proceed] incorporate YHVH]
Coordinate Forgiveness [YHVH does the coordinating re forgiveness]
Original
Epiphany [YHVH is the origin of one's moment of sudden and great revelation or realization.]
The Dolphins And Whales [reference to other earthly critters with free will and awareness of YHVH]
Getting unstuck [is what forgiveness managers to acheive]
According [according to the linked video - Woman Crosses Over and Gets Told Our Role on Earth (Near Death Experience)] [RandomTimeSelection=9:00]

I then did a quick number value calculation
William: Forgiveness -
Incorporate The Life Essence, Coordinate Forgiveness = 512
and found one enter which added up to the same number
Superposition - Being aware of Human Control Dramas = 512

Which is to say that forgiveness is helpful in regard to human controls drama's - specifically the one mentioned in the video to do with Child abuse...

A very useful fiction [even if the story was fiction, it still serves a useful purpose]
Two seemingly contradictory things working as one overall organized thing. [re the granddaughter and the grandfathers relationship as expressed by the woman explaining her alternate experience to us.]
Communication With The Deeper Levels of Self [This is what is happening re the interactions folk have with others when experiencing these alternate realities]
The Shadow [ ]
Develop a basic, fact-based view first and then ask the question. [good advice]
Radiate Honesty [even while in the process of developing a basic, fact-based view...]

Do you agree with my assessed interpretation of the GM as it sits?


__________________________________
Do you agree with the List of Agreements post #
__________________________________

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #141]

On personal experience, beliefs, and making a case

Personal experiences are subjective.
Non-theists will argue that subjective experience counts for nothing. Do you agree with non-theists?

I think one’s own subjective experience counts for something (but not everything) when thinking through one’s own personal supported opinions. I think one person’s subjective experience doesn’t count for much (and sometimes nothing) when a different person is thinking through their own personal supported opinions.

Making a case is about presenting evidence which explains personal experience. Beliefs are simply unsupported opinions about personal experience.

I don’t equate ‘beliefs’ to ‘unsupported opinions’. I think unsupported opinions are one type of belief, but that a belief can be a supported opinion as well. I’ll try to use “supported opinions” instead of belief in this conversation (since I don’t think unsupported opinions are worth sharing in making one’s case) unless you have a different term you use for such things that would be less confusing for us.

I believe we agree on a lot of stuff, but not enough to both be united under the same YHVH.

There is only ONE YHVH.

I agree there is only one true YHVH, but many false conceptions of YHVH. The points at which we seem to contradict each other in our supported opinions about YHVH would logically lead to at least one of us being under a false YHVH.


On simulation and alternate experiences

Ordinary experiences would include, not having the ability to walk on water, walk through walls, appear and disappear before witnesses, ascending out into the clouds without the use of any obvious apparatus, having visions, et al...

Alternate experiences would include - but not be limited to - experiencing those things mentioned.

Those are examples I agree with, but there are plenty of examples left uncategorized where we may not agree. That’s why definitions can be so helpful to lay out on the table. Did you want to ask me anything about the examples above, with the terminology being clear for these?


On YHVH being life

Are you saying that one who's will is connected with the will of YHVH, is/would be enslaved?

No, I’m saying if I am ontologically a part of YHVH or YHVH is ontologically a part of me, then YHVH would seem to be deciding choices for the personality, negating the personality’s will or enslaving it, and that I think such an enslavement is not good.

Do slaves of Christ have no free will? Or is it more a case that they have invested their free will into the realization that YHVH's will is the better way in which a human personality can use their will, and in doing so, pretty much renounce their own personal use of said free will, in favor of saying, “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” signifying that they acknowledge that if they used their free will for their own choice, they would choose differently than YHVH, and thus, a will enslaved to YHVH is the better choice.

Yes, I think you understand being a “slave of Christ” correctly here. The only caveat I have it that I don’t think this means renouncing their own personal use of said free will. They are exercising their free will to ignore other influences (their own or others) and siding with YHVH’s influence.


On insight and judgment

I agree. In agreeing I have to conclude that Jesus is not conflating using discernment with being Judgmental.

Yes, that is exactly my point.


On the garden story

Do you think Adam knew WHY it was important to trust in YHVH's word?

If so, please show us in the story, where Adam knew why it was important.

Genesis 2:17 when YHVH says if you eat of the tree you will die. This is a spiritual death that will, therefore, lead to physical death as well (being banished from eating of the tree of life, of being immortal).

There isn’t a verse that says “Adam understood that blah, blah, blah,” if you mean that, though. That’s not a problem because it also doesn’t say “Adam didn’t understand blah, blah, blah.” I think, all else being equal, the author would assume the reader would assume Adam understands it unless otherwise told.

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).

YHVH has always understood YHVH's self and why YHVH understands good and evil the way YHVH does.

Yes, I agree. But humans haven’t. That’s a reason why I think we are eternally ontologically separate agents from YHVH.

Thus, YHVH’s agenda couldn’t continue regardless of whether humans understand it (and act on it).

This statement requires more content for it to be understood re the statement prior to it.

You seemed to me to be saying that YHVH’s agenda was something different than humans understanding good and evil the way YHVH understands it. I think that is YHVH’s agenda. That’s what being in a loving community with YHVH and each other necessarily includes.

If you mean the loving community rolls on even when some people don’t come on board, then I agree. If you don’t mean either of these two things, then what do you mean when you speak of “YHVH’s agenda continuing regardless of whether humans understand good or evil the way YHVH understands it, or not?”


On Generated Messages

I have no particular belief about why the GMs form as they do. I look to the science for answers - not to prop up beliefs you appear to think I have about said process.

I am talking about your belief that these GMs are from YHVH. Or that these GMs should be seen as support for the opinion on whatever subject you understand them to be espousing.

I do not know why they work as they do - but I am able to ascertain that it must have something to do with YHVH as I understand YHVH to being the principle mind behind this simulated reality I am experiencing with you.

That doesn’t logically follow. YHVH could have something to do with it or they could simply have the appearance of working when it’s really not, because of coincidence or hindsight reading into it, etc.

I do not know how the GM predicted that the subject of child abuse would be brought up in our conversation before you brought it up, except that if YHVH exists then it makes perfect sense.

…

Now - to assist the readers understanding re my own understanding of what the GM was expressing

…

Why isn’t this just you looking back on two things that had a connection and reading into the message? Why not interpret the message like this:

Brother Concision The Right Tool For the Job - Here is some advice on how you are to best proceed in your conversation with The Tanager

The Life Essence Coordinate Forgiveness - YHVH offers forgiveness

Original Ephiphany - Through Jesus, just like the Magi abandoned their belief system to find Christ

The Dolphins and Whales - Realizing you are similar to but ontologically separate from YHVH and always will be.

Getting unstuck According [video] - This is how you can gain freedom from harms done to you in your past

Superposition - Being aware of Human Control Dramas - Some manipulative behavior you have experienced in the past

A very useful fiction - YHVH wants to use those wrongs

Two seemingly contradictory things working as one overall organized thing - For your good, even though this seems contradictory

The Shadow - Righting past wrongs is good, but the ultimate aim is to be with the source of Light, Christ.

Develop a basic, fact-based view first and then ask the question Radiate Honesty - The traditional Christian view The Tanager is presenting you is best attested by the facts, will always leave room for your questions, and present honest truth.


On the List of Agreements

We have agreed that human personalities are useful to YHVH, which is why they are grown.

Depends on what you mean by being useful to YHVH. I don’t think they are a means to some other end for YHVH, but that they are the end/purpose YHVH has in mind.

I think I’ve disagreed with 4 previously. I don’t think YHVH grows human personalities for the purpose of knowing why they live in the environment they do. I think the purpose is to be in loving community with YHVH and each other in their environment. If you think that is equivalent to your 4, then I guess we agree.

I didn’t address 12 before, but if you mean that those who act against the agenda of YHVH disagree with YHVH’s view of good and evil, I agree. The verb “accuse” causes some confusion on that front for me.

As for 17, I think we can say that these stories don’t reveal simulation theory. That is, they don’t directly teach it (but perhaps you mean something else in using ‘reveal’). Simulation theory can make sense of the story, but that is through re-interpreting or adding to how the story itself is presented.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #142]


Personal Supported Opinions.

I don’t equate ‘beliefs’ to ‘unsupported opinions’. I think unsupported opinions are one type of belief, but that a belief can be a supported opinion as well.

Please give an example of a supported opinion.

I agree there is only one true YHVH, but many false conceptions of YHVH.

Please give an example of a false conception of YHVH.

Simulation and Alternate Experiences

Those are examples I agree with, but there are plenty of examples left uncategorized where we may not agree.

We can examine such, if/when they show. I was simply replying to your question/statement;

I don’t know what you mean by ‘ordinary experiences’ or ‘alternate experiences’

On YHVH being life

No, I’m saying if I am ontologically a part of YHVH or YHVH is ontologically a part of me, then YHVH would seem to be deciding choices for the personality, negating the personality’s will or enslaving it, and that I think such an enslavement is not good.

You appear to have trust/fear issues re relationship with YHVH. How do you know your will from YHVH's?

Yes, I think you understand being a “slave of Christ” correctly here. The only caveat I have it that I don’t think this means renouncing their own personal use of said free will.

It appears more to be about trust rather than renouncing will - "not my will" doesn't appear to be a renouncement so much as an acknowledgement that ones own will is less reliable than YHVHs.

They are exercising their free will to ignore other influences (their own or others) and siding with YHVH’s influence.

Do you understand YHVH's influence as separate from YHVH's will?

One's general hesitancy with accepting YHVH is life, must have the side affect of not being able to trust in the connect, which means one will go elsewhere - outside of their self - to other personalities and trust in them, and confuse ones connect with YHVH as being through others.

Insight and judgment

In agreeing I have to conclude that Jesus is not conflating using discernment with being Judgmental.

Yes, that is exactly my point.

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.

Agree?

The garden story

Do you think Adam knew WHY it was important to trust in YHVH's word?

If so, please show us in the story, where Adam knew why it was important.

There isn’t a verse that says “Adam understood that blah, blah, blah,” if you mean that, though.

That’s not a problem because it also doesn’t say “Adam didn’t understand blah, blah, blah.” I think, all else being equal, the author would assume the reader would assume Adam understands it unless otherwise told.

Assumption is problematic. Further to that, we have your comment that the garden story isn't a literal occurrence, but a poetic one which represents in a figurative manner, an apparent 'fall' which can be legitimately recognized as fictional representation of a fictional concept.

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).

YHVH has always understood YHVH's self and why YHVH understands good and evil the way YHVH does.

Yes, I agree. But humans haven’t. That’s a reason why I think we are eternally ontologically separate agents from YHVH.

It seems some beliefs would have it that way. However, trusting such stories naturally leads to one having to trust "separate agents from YHVH" rather than understand that there is no separation which is real and any thought about separation is wrought through belief rather than in realization of the truth through examining all the evidence made available.

If 'knowing YHVH' is a process, one can miss the mark by believing in separate agents from YHVH and identifying oneself as also being a separate agent from YHVH.
Jesus does not appear to be teaching that either he or us are separate agents from YHVH, but appears to be almost insistent in his encouragement for individual personalities to find that connect.

I would treat any such advice that we are ontologically separate from YHVH as misinformation. The separation exists only with the individual who believes such to be the case for them, and extends this to also being the case for everyone else. As such, the separation is illusion, albeit a very strong one.

You seemed to me to be saying that YHVH’s agenda was something different than humans understanding good and evil the way YHVH understands it. I think that is YHVH’s agenda. That’s what being in a loving community with YHVH and each other necessarily includes.

If you mean the loving community rolls on even when some people don’t come on board, then I agree. If you don’t mean either of these two things, then what do you mean when you speak of “YHVH’s agenda continuing regardless of whether humans understand good or evil the way YHVH understands it, or not?”

I am speaking about YHVH's agenda for making use of this particular universe. This does include growing human personalities, but those personalities are useful to YHVH re alternate realities.
Forming loving communities is achieved but there are differences in how these function in degree.
Your beliefs have it that as a personality, you will be given a body which is able to withstand the rigors of this particular universe, and here you will reside forevermore and eternal separated from YHVH ontologically.
Others, especially those who experience alternate realities are exposed to different knowledge and - given a choice, would naturally want to reside permanently in those, rather than in this one.
I would say that, if you asked YHVH for such an experience, you would naturally change your mind about staying in this reality experience forever and that any objection you make re asking YHVH is more about your own beliefs, which YHVH accommodates, as respect for your use of your personal free will.
However, I have to reject any belief that everyone should expect the same and believe the same since YHVH makes alternate experiences available to us.
This is not to say that YHVH wouldn't have use for personalities who want to experience this particular reality forever, and remain ontologically disconnected from YHVH re YHVHs agenda for this particular universe. I am simply saying that there are more options than you appear to want to acknowledge.

On Generated Messages

These will continue to be presented and folk can take whatever they will from them.
If you believe that YHVH is incapable of using such device to convey message, we disagree.

YHVH could have something to do with it or they could simply have the appearance of working when it’s really not, because of coincidence or hindsight reading into it, etc.

Like I wrote; [and what you noticeably cut out [...] when quoting me]

Not only did the GM predict what came about, but it also offered reasons for WHY the woman in the video met her grandfather in an alternate experience and experienced knowing that all was good between her and granddad...

If you are saying it was simply coincidence, why should I not think of you as a non-theist in theist cloth?

There is no reason why I should think YHVH has nothing to do with it, since YHVH is presented as being omnipresent and omniscient. There is no reason to fob it off as "nothing more than coincidence" Tanager - it would be best that we agree to leave non-theist murmurings out of our discussion altogether.

Agreed?

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.

If you believe that your interpretation of the short piece of GM I quoted, is fundamentally different from my own, then we would have a problem. Otherwise, our individual interpretations of anything, should not create any such problem.
Agreed?

For example - many Christians do not agree with the varied interpretations of the Bible which result in formations of denominations.
This does not appear to cause any particular fundamental problem between Christians but only superficial ones.
Agreed?

On the List of Agreements

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.

I didn’t address 12 before, but if you mean that those who act against the agenda of YHVH disagree with YHVH’s view of good and evil, I agree. The verb “accuse” causes some confusion on that front for me.

It has to do with the so-called "Problem of evil" - and how it is used by folk to accuse YHVH of being evil.

As for 17, I think we can say that these stories don’t reveal simulation theory. That is, they don’t directly teach it (but perhaps you mean something else in using ‘reveal’). Simulation theory can make sense of the story, but that is through re-interpreting or adding to how the story itself is presented.

What I mean - and have explained in earlier posts - is that Simulation Theory is a relatively knew idea which coincides with the modern world discovery and can be related in hindsight to ancient religious stories and other stories of alternate experiences, without even needing to reinterpret or add anything to said stories - for example - without even having to class the story of the garden as being 'poetic' or 'metaphor'.

Do you agree?

[a more comprehensive example of my take on the garden story can be viewed here.
viewtopic.php?p=1092485#p1092485 ]

[The Tanager]

On personal experience, beliefs, and making a case

Please give an example of a supported opinion.

I believe that the earth is “round”.

Please give an example of a false conception of YHVH.

What the true conception is doesn’t matter for the point I was making. Speaking in the same sense, same time, etc., one person says that YHVH is a material being, while another person says that YHVH is an immaterial being. They can’t both be right. At least one of them has to have a false conception of YHVH.


On YHVH being life

No, I’m saying if I am ontologically a part of YHVH or YHVH is ontologically a part of me, then YHVH would seem to be deciding choices for the personality, negating the personality’s will or enslaving it, and that I think such an enslavement is not good.

You appear to have trust/fear issues re relationship with YHVH.

I’m not sure why what I said shows I have fear/trust issues. I only made a logical claim about how being ontologically a part of something ‘else’ and forcing the choice that that ‘else’ makes would be negating any separate free will the ‘else’ had.

How do you know your will from YHVH's?

At times it seems clear (although I could be wrong in those moments, of course). There is also comparing what I want with what I feel is revealed of YHVH’s unchanging nature and will in reliable sources of YHVH’s interaction with humanity.

It appears more to be about trust rather than renouncing will - "not my will" doesn't appear to be a renouncement so much as an acknowledgement that ones own will is less reliable than YHVHs.

I agree.

Do you understand YHVH's influence as separate from YHVH's will?

No.

One's general hesitancy with accepting YHVH is life, must have the side affect of not being able to trust in the connect, which means one will go elsewhere - outside of their self - to other personalities and trust in them, and confuse ones connect with YHVH as being through others.

To believe that I am a completely distinct ontological being from YHVH (although my life/existence is dependent on YHVH) does not have the side affect of not being able to trust YHVH and going elsewhere. I’m not sure why you think otherwise.


On insight and judgment

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.

Yes, YHVH alone should “judge,” but we are called to “discern” and help others change.


On the garden story

Assumption is problematic.

Perhaps I should have used “expect” to be clearer in my meaning. We are more rational to believe that Adam understood why it was important to trust YHVH than to believe Adam didn’t understand it.

Further to that, we have your comment that the garden story isn't a literal occurrence, but a poetic one which represents in a figurative manner, an apparent 'fall' which can be legitimately recognized as fictional representation of a fictional concept.

I never said it wasn’t a literal occurrence. I said I believe it was probably a poetic re-telling of a literal occurrence or a poetic telling of a universal human experience of choosing good and evil for ourselves rather than relying on YHVH. Even in the latter, this isn’t relating a fictional concept, but truth through a fictional medium.

It seems some beliefs would have it that way. However, trusting such stories naturally leads to one having to trust "separate agents from YHVH" rather than understand that there is no separation which is real and any thought about separation is wrought through belief rather than in realization of the truth through examining all the evidence made available.

I’ve never understood why this makes sense.

(a) I think I’m separate from YHVH.
(b) YHVH knows I’m not separate from YHVH

I believe something different from YHVH, but there is no separation between us? The difference of belief is, itself, a separation. If I’m not separate from YHVH, then how can I think separately from YHVH? There has to be some kind of separation to be able to think we are separated.

Jesus does not appear to be teaching that either he or us are separate agents from YHVH, but appears to be almost insistent in his encouragement for individual personalities to find that connect.

I agree there is a relationship, a call to rely on YHVH, but you agree in an ontological oneness, right? Jesus doesn’t teach that we are ontologically one, as far as I can see.

Your beliefs have it that as a personality, you will be given a body which is able to withstand the rigors of this particular universe, and here you will reside forevermore and eternal separated from YHVH ontologically.
Others, especially those who experience alternate realities are exposed to different knowledge and - given a choice, would naturally want to reside permanently in those, rather than in this one.
I would say that, if you asked YHVH for such an experience, you would naturally change your mind about staying in this reality experience forever and that any objection you make re asking YHVH is more about your own beliefs, which YHVH accommodates, as respect for your use of your personal free will.

And I disagree that this is an accurate picture of reality. We can’t both be right. Therefore, one of us has a false understanding of YHVH.


On Generated Messages

If you believe that YHVH is incapable of using such device to convey message, we disagree.

I didn’t say YHVH is incapable. Being capable of using and actually using are two different things. And, if YHVH did use it, what YHVH is saying and not saying is another question.

Like I wrote; [and what you noticeably cut out [...] when quoting me]

Not only did the GM predict what came about, but it also offered reasons for WHY the woman in the video met her grandfather in an alternate experience and experienced knowing that all was good between her and granddad…

If you are saying it was simply coincidence, why should I not think of you as a non-theist in theist cloth?

Neither of us always quotes every word the other makes. I felt my response addressed this point adequately.

That the GM is coincidence or that you have misinterpreted it shouldn’t lead you to think of me as a non-theist in theist cloth because that is not the only (or best) alternative. Theists can disagree with each other. Theists can disagree about what methods YHVH is using (or the message that comes from such a method) and not consider the other a non-theist. You would have a funny definition of “theist” if you considered me not one simply because I don’t agree with your theology.

There is no reason why I should think YHVH has nothing to do with it, since YHVH is presented as being omnipresent and omniscient. There is no reason to fob it off as "nothing more than coincidence" Tanager - it would be best that we agree to leave non-theist murmurings out of our discussion altogether.

Being omnipresent and omniscient doesn’t mean YHVH is part of every message. You don’t believe YHVH is; you reject certain messages as going against YHVH’s agenda, too.

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.

I think I (and other people) could do the same thing with all of your GMs and bring the whole context in conformity to our narratives because one must interpret and fill in so many gaps with these messages. That vagueness is a major reason why one should think YHVH has nothing to do with GMs. Why would YHVH use a method that could be interpreted to put just about any message in YHVH’s mouth that one would want? Everyone could make YHVH in whatever image they wanted.

If you believe that your interpretation of the short piece of GM I quoted, is fundamentally different from my own, then we would have a problem. Otherwise, our individual interpretations of anything, should not create any such problem.

My interpretation is very much fundamentally different from your own.

For example - many Christians do not agree with the varied interpretations of the Bible which result in formations of denominations.
This does not appear to cause any particular fundamental problem between Christians but only superficial ones.

Yes, of course, there are different levels of disagreement. Christianity has a few real branches (that get categorized in different systems with different labels such as conservative/liberal, among many others), when talking about core beliefs. Denominations differ over smaller ones, with many differing over very superficial differences.


On the List of Agreements

It has to do with the so-called "Problem of evil" - and how it is used by folk to accuse YHVH of being evil.

I agree that those who accuse YHVH of being evil are acting against the agenda of YHVH. I think some who act against YHVH’s agenda don’t call YHVH evil (at least not directly) but build a false YHVH in their own image as though YHVH’s agenda coincides with their own.

What I mean - and have explained in earlier posts - is that Simulation Theory is a relatively knew idea which coincides with the modern world discovery and can be related in hindsight to ancient religious stories and other stories of alternate experiences, without even needing to reinterpret or add anything to said stories - for example - without even having to class the story of the garden as being 'poetic' or 'metaphor'.

Being new means it involves reinterpreting the stories from how they were previously interpreted.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #144]

I believe that the earth is “round”.

I think it is better not to conflate "belief" with "Knowledge".

Do you agree?

What the true conception is doesn’t matter for the point I was making. Speaking in the same sense, same time, etc., one person says that YHVH is a material being, while another person says that YHVH is an immaterial being. They can’t both be right. At least one of them has to have a false conception of YHVH.

I see no reason why YHVH cannot be both material and immaterial and therefore both concepts can be correct [true].

How do you know your will from YHVH's?

At times it seems clear (although I could be wrong in those moments, of course). There is also comparing what I want with what I feel is revealed of YHVH’s unchanging nature and will in reliable sources of YHVH’s interaction with humanity.

What "reliable sources" - and of those - what has been tested to show the reliability of such sources?

It appears more to be about trust rather than renouncing will - "not my will" doesn't appear to be a renouncement so much as an acknowledgement that ones own will is less reliable than YHVHs.

I agree.

Then we can add that to the agreement list.

18: The individual will of a growing personality is better entrusted to YHVHs overarching Will.

Do you understand YHVH's influence as separate from YHVH's will?

No.

19: Understanding YHVH's Influence is understanding YHVH's Will.

To believe that I am a completely distinct ontological being from YHVH (although my life/existence is dependent on YHVH) does not have the side affect of not being able to trust YHVH and going elsewhere. I’m not sure why you think otherwise.

I think otherwise because you appear to be arguing for that in your comments to do with "Traditional Christianity" and "Reliable Sources" et al.

Until these are adequately explained, I think it appropriate to understand your position as 'going elsewhere' since those are some of the things you are pointing to in your argument against my own position.

Agree?

Yes, YHVH alone should “judge,” but we are called to “discern” and help others change.

Discerning is not judging and should never be used in that manner through conflation.

Agreed?

Assumption is problematic.

Perhaps I should have used “expect” to be clearer in my meaning. We are more rational to believe that Adam understood why it was important to trust YHVH than to believe Adam didn’t understand it.

It is more rationally honest to follow the storyline and see where Adam used assumption and made the mistake of "going elsewhere" instead of staying close to YHVH.

Agreed?

Also;

Just because someone doesn't have understanding about YHVH, doesn't mean that they are less able to trust YHVH. The story involves more than just Trust or Fear issues as to why YHVH judged Adam the way YHVH did.

Agreed?

I never said it wasn’t a literal occurrence. I said I believe it was probably a poetic re-telling of a literal occurrence or a poetic telling of a universal human experience of choosing good and evil for ourselves rather than relying on YHVH. Even in the latter, this isn’t relating a fictional concept, but truth through a fictional medium.

Once poetry is involved, the lines become blurred between literal and figurative which often leads to confusion as to which parts of a story are to be taken literally and which are not.
This opens the gate to loopholes, similar to black holes in function and wisely avoided.

Agreed?

It seems some beliefs would have it that way. However, trusting such stories naturally leads to one having to trust "separate agents from YHVH" rather than understand that there is no separation which is real and any thought about separation is wrought through belief rather than in realization of the truth through examining all the evidence made available.

I’ve never understood why this makes sense.

There may be a number of factors which interfere with the understanding process.

(a) I think I’m separate from YHVH.

This thought may be in error. What testing have you done in the way of establishing such thinking is true?

(b) YHVH knows I’m not separate from YHVH

Since we agree with;

1: We exist within a creation.

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.

This would equate to YHVH knowing which personalities understand they are NOT separate from YHVH and how useful the knowledge would be re;

5: It is an advantage to all grown personalities to be consciously and consistently connected with YVHV and thus understand and support YVHVs initiatives.

Agreed?

I believe something different from YHVH, but there is no separation between us? The difference of belief is, itself, a separation. If I’m not separate from YHVH, then how can I think separately from YHVH? There has to be some kind of separation to be able to think we are separated.

True. And so it is up to the individual personality to find the way in which their thoughts change to accommodate (5: )

Agreed?

Jesus does not appear to be teaching that either he or us are separate agents from YHVH, but appears to be almost insistent in his encouragement for individual personalities to find that connect.

I agree there is a relationship, a call to rely on YHVH, but you agree in an ontological oneness, right?

Correct.

Jesus doesn’t teach that we are ontologically one, as far as I can see.

What makes you think that Jesus would teach something which can only be learned through an individual personality connecting with YHVH?

And I disagree that this is an accurate picture of reality. We can’t both be right. Therefore, one of us has a false understanding of YHVH.

As I pointed out about another of your "we both can't be right" comments, why do you think YHVH cannot provide both?

Neither of us always quotes every word the other makes. I felt my response addressed this point adequately.

I simply noted that your bringing "simply coincidence" into your argument against theist concepts, is an atheistic tactic.
Your response neglected to acknowledge the fact that the quoted GM anticipated your child abuse question and delivered its own correspondence ahead of you.
Handwaving the evidence away as you did, did not address that evidence.

That the GM is coincidence or that you have misinterpreted it shouldn’t lead you to think of me as a non-theist in theist cloth because that is not the only (or best) alternative.

I have made it clear to you that atheistic arguments are void in this discussion you and I are having, due to our agreement;
5: It is an advantage to all grown personalities to be consciously and consistently connected with YVHV and thus understand and support YVHVs initiatives.

If the GM is coincidence or being misinterpreted, it is up to you to show why that is the case, and since you haven't done so, these have been shown to be the reason why I think your protests are atheistic in nature.
I have now made it clear to you.

Agreed?

Theists can disagree with each other. Theists can disagree about what methods YHVH is using (or the message that comes from such a method) and not consider the other a non-theist. You would have a funny definition of “theist” if you considered me not one simply because I don’t agree with your theology.

No. It is not about agreeing or disagreeing with theological views. It is about using atheistic arguments against theistic views.

Please stop. listen. observe. before committing to erroneous atheistic deduction as to what is going on between us, Tanager.

Being omnipresent and omniscient doesn’t mean YHVH is part of every message. You don’t believe YHVH is; you reject certain messages as going against YHVH’s agenda, too.

I find this statement is not only hard to follow, but also appears to be without support Tanager.

Can you re-word it - with support - for more clarity?

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.

I think I (and other people) could do the same thing with all of your GMs and bring the whole context in conformity to our narratives because one must interpret and fill in so many gaps with these messages.

Agree.

That vagueness is a major reason why one should think YHVH has nothing to do with GMs.

Disagree.

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 is an atheistic one Tanager. It is often used by non-theists to point out how Christians interpret the Bible and group into various belief-orders.

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?

Everyone could make YHVH in whatever image they wanted.

Aka "I Am That I Am."

Agreed?

Re the GMs mentioning YHVH/YHWH
March 2022 YHVH is mentioned 9 times
April 2022 YHVH is mentioned 8 times
May 2022 YHVH is mentioned 12 times
June 2022 YHVH is not mentioned
July 2022 YHVH is mentioned 24 times
August 2022 YHVH is mentioned 35 times
September 2022 YHVH is mentioned 129 times
October 2022 YHVH is mentioned 45 times

If you believe that your interpretation of the short piece of GM I quoted, is fundamentally different from my own, then we would have a problem. Otherwise, our individual interpretations of anything, should not create any such problem.

My interpretation is very much fundamentally different from your own.

Please show these fundamental differences which are apparent to you.

For example - many Christians do not agree with the varied interpretations of the Bible which result in formations of denominations.
This does not appear to cause any particular fundamental problem between Christians but only superficial ones.

Yes, of course, there are different levels of disagreement. Christianity has a few real branches (that get categorized in different systems with different labels such as conservative/liberal, among many others), when talking about core beliefs. Denominations differ over smaller ones, with many differing over very superficial differences.

But nothing in the way of "very much fundamentally different" as you claim our interpretation of the quoted GM are...?

I agree that those who accuse YHVH of being evil are acting against the agenda of YHVH. I think some who act against YHVH’s agenda don’t call YHVH evil (at least not directly) but build a false YHVH in their own image as though YHVH’s agenda coincides with their own.

Can you point to any of these one's as examples?
Perhaps this a case of your thinking such, has no basis in reality/isn't actually what is going on at all?

What I mean - and have explained in earlier posts - is that Simulation Theory is a relatively knew idea which coincides with the modern world discovery and can be related in hindsight to ancient religious stories and other stories of alternate experiences, without even needing to reinterpret or add anything to said stories - for example - without even having to class the story of the garden as being 'poetic' or 'metaphor'.

Being new means it involves reinterpreting the stories from how they were previously interpreted.

New information has to be inserted into old information and if that means a reinterpretation occurs, this in itself should not prevent new information being inserted into old information.

Agreed?

[The Tanager]

On personal experience, beliefs, and making a case

I think it is better not to conflate "belief" with "Knowledge".

If knowledge is about 100% certainty, then we truly don’t “know” anything beyond pure mathematics and definitions, so I should still use ‘belief’ here. If knowledge isn’t about 100% certainty, then what’s the difference between ‘knowledge’ and ‘belief’ to you?

What the true conception is doesn’t matter for the point I was making. Speaking in the same sense, same time, etc., one person says that YHVH is a material being, while another person says that YHVH is an immaterial being. They can’t both be right. At least one of them has to have a false conception of YHVH.

I see no reason why YHVH cannot be both material and immaterial and therefore both concepts can be correct [true].

That is a third option (parts being material and other parts immaterial) that, if true, would make the previous two both false, so my point remains.

What "reliable sources" - and of those - what has been tested to show the reliability of such sources?

I believe the Christian Bible is the collection of reliable sources that we have. My argument would flow from an argument on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus to the reliability of the New Testament documents in providing what Jesus taught.


On YHVH being life

I think otherwise because you appear to be arguing for that in your comments to do with "Traditional Christianity" and "Reliable Sources" et al.

Until these are adequately explained, I think it appropriate to understand your position as 'going elsewhere' since those are some of the things you are pointing to in your argument against my own position.

How is arguing for reliable sources on what YHVH has revealed about YHVH’s self “going elsewhere”?

And why do you think being ontologically united to another being is the only way one can be said to trust the “other” being.


On insight and judgment

Discerning is not judging and should never be used in that manner through conflation.

In how you are using those terms, yes. But plenty of people use “judge” in multiple senses.


On the garden story

It is more rationally honest to follow the storyline and see where Adam used assumption and made the mistake of "going elsewhere" instead of staying close to YHVH.

It is more rationally honest to follow the storyline. Stories don’t spell everything out, though. This story doesn’t spell out a direct answer to the question we are asking right here, so however one wants to answer that question, they will need to look at the whole context to truly follow the storyline.

That Adam didn’t know it was important to trust YHVH completely goes against that context.

Just because someone doesn't have understanding about YHVH, doesn't mean that they are less able to trust YHVH. The story involves more than just Trust or Fear issues as to why YHVH judged Adam the way YHVH did.

Why do you think I’ve said otherwise? I haven’t addressed such a question. If you want to posit all the issues you think it’s about, then I will share where I agree or disagree.

Once poetry is involved, the lines become blurred between literal and figurative which often leads to confusion as to which parts of a story are to be taken literally and which are not.
This opens the gate to loopholes, similar to black holes in function and wisely avoided.

Any message is open to confusion. Poetry still has features that help us to understand what the author’s message was.

I believe something different from YHVH, but there is no separation between us? The difference of belief is, itself, a separation. If I’m not separate from YHVH, then how can I think separately from YHVH? There has to be some kind of separation to be able to think we are separated.

True. And so it is up to the individual personality to find the way in which their thoughts change to accommodate (5: )

I’m not sure how this (and the bit before it that I didn’t quote but I’m not ignoring) answered my critique. Here is my argument:

1. A difference of thought (about the same issue) is a separation.
2. There is a difference of thought between YHVH and me (namely, I think I’m separated from YHVH, but YHVH thinks I’m not separated from YHVH).
3. Therefore, there is a separation between YHVH and me.

Which premise do you disagree with?

What makes you think that Jesus would teach something which can only be learned through an individual personality connecting with YHVH?

Jesus taught quite a bit; he never taught this. If Jesus thought that was the ultimate goal, he would have taught it.


On Generated Messages

I simply noted that your bringing "simply coincidence" into your argument against theist concepts, is an atheistic tactic.

I said it could be coincidence or a possible misunderstanding of non-coincidence. But even if I settled on it being just coincidence, this is not an “atheist tactic”. It’s a “tactic” that fits within both atheist and theist worldviews. If you want to make an argument as to why you think it is atheistic at its core, then go ahead, but you don’t just get to claim it is.

Your response neglected to acknowledge the fact that the quoted GM anticipated your child abuse question and delivered its own correspondence ahead of you.
Handwaving the evidence away as you did, did not address that evidence.

I didn’t neglect that. I said it could be a coincidence.

If the GM is coincidence or being misinterpreted, it is up to you to show why that is the case, and since you haven't done so, these have been shown to be the reason why I think your protests are atheistic in nature. I have now made it clear to you.

You are bringing these GMs as a valid method of communication with YHVH, so it’s your burden to show it’s not a coincidence and that it should be interpreted in the way you are interpreting it.

Being omnipresent and omniscient doesn’t mean YHVH is part of every message. You don’t believe YHVH is; you reject certain messages as going against YHVH’s agenda, too.

I find this statement is not only hard to follow, but also appears to be without support Tanager.

Can you re-word it - with support - for more clarity?

You said “There is no reason why I should think YHVH has nothing to do with it, since YHVH is presented as being omnipresent and omniscient.” It does not follow that because YHVH is omnipresent and omniscient, that we should assume YHVH is giving these GMs unless proven otherwise.

But nothing in the way of "very much fundamentally different" as you claim our interpretation of the quoted GM are...?

No, liberal Christians are just as fundamentally different from my beliefs as your beliefs are.

Can you point to any of these one's as examples?
Perhaps this a case of your thinking such, has no basis in reality/isn't actually what is going on at all?

The Pharisees in the story we were talking about. They didn’t call YHVH evil. Jesus said they were acting against YHVH’s agenda, however.

New information has to be inserted into old information and if that means a reinterpretation occurs, this in itself should not prevent new information being inserted into old information.

Of course. But there needs to be good reason to do so.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #146]
On personal experience, beliefs, and making a case

I think it is better not to conflate "belief" with "Knowledge".

If knowledge is about 100% certainty, then we truly don’t “know” anything beyond pure mathematics and definitions, so I should still use ‘belief’ here. If knowledge isn’t about 100% certainty, then what’s the difference between ‘knowledge’ and ‘belief’ to you?

Knowledge is not about 100% certainty. Is belief about percentage?
You claim to believe in the resurrection - what percentage of belief do you have about that?

I see no reason why YHVH cannot be both material and immaterial and therefore both concepts can be correct [true].

That is a third option (parts being material and other parts immaterial) that, if true, would make the previous two both false, so my point remains.

I consider that your point is needlessly contrary.

What "reliable sources" - and of those - what has been tested to show the reliability of such sources?

I believe the Christian Bible is the collection of reliable sources that we have.

What percentage is your belief about this?
What has been tested to show the reliability of the Christian Bible?

My argument would flow from an argument on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus to the reliability of the New Testament documents in providing what Jesus taught.

Then I can expect that should you detect any contradiction, you would use the words of Jesus to
show it is the case.

Agreed?

On YHVH being life

How is arguing for reliable sources on what YHVH has revealed about YHVH’s self “going elsewhere”?

When one doesn't provide reliable sources/anything biblical to verify one's argument against my own, but only implies my argument is against scripture, one is effectively "going elsewhere"... our path on the matter is different...splits away...

And why do you think being ontologically united to another being is the only way one can be said to trust the “other” being.

Are you saying that you have trust in your direct communion with YHVH even while denying an ontologically unity? What percentage would you give to that trust?

Discerning is not judging and should never be used in that manner through conflation.

In how you are using those terms, yes. But plenty of people use “judge” in multiple senses.

I prefer not to conflate. Are you saying you are one of those "plenty" who use “judge” in multiple senses?
Are you willing not to, in respect for our discussion?

1. A difference of thought (about the same issue) is a separation.
2. There is a difference of thought between YHVH and me (namely, I think I’m separated from YHVH, but YHVH thinks I’m not separated from YHVH).
3. Therefore, there is a separation between YHVH and me.

Which premise do you disagree with?

It is incomplete, as you do not correctly include YHVH's point of view with your premises.

1. A difference of thought (about the same issue) is a separation.
2. There is a difference of thought between YHVH and me (namely, I think I’m separated from YHVH, but YHVH thinks I’m not separated from YHVH).
3. Therefore, there is a separation between YHVH and me, from my point of view but not from YHVH's point of view
4. I agree that it is an advantage to all grown personalities to be consciously and consistently connected with YVHV and thus understand and support YVHVs initiatives.
5. Therefore my belief that I am separate from YHVH is an illusion of my own making, based upon my own beliefs.

What makes you think that Jesus would teach something which can only be learned through an individual personality connecting with YHVH?

Jesus taught quite a bit; he never taught this. If Jesus thought that was the ultimate goal, he would have taught it.

Are you claiming that Jesus never taught about YHVH or encouraged individual personalities to connect with YHVH?

On the garden story

It is more rationally honest to follow the storyline and see where Adam used assumption and made the mistake of "going elsewhere" instead of staying close to YHVH.

It is more rationally honest to follow the storyline. Stories don’t spell everything out, though. This story doesn’t spell out a direct answer to the question we are asking right here, so however one wants to answer that question, they will need to look at the whole context to truly follow the storyline.

That Adam didn’t know it was important to trust YHVH completely goes against that context.

So you claim. I see no accompanying reasoning for your declaration Tanager, so for now, have nothing more to add.

On Generated Messages

I said it could be a coincidence.

At what point would you consider that the argument of coincidence would no longer be valid?

You are bringing these GMs as a valid method of communication with YHVH, so it’s your burden to show it’s not a coincidence and that it should be interpreted in the way you are interpreting it.

My argument is that YHVH using such device as part of one's connect with YHVH, should be considered valid if you cannot show why it shouldn't be valid.
Since you agree that it could be, I see no reason as to why we cannot agree now and move on...

You said “There is no reason why I should think YHVH has nothing to do with it, since YHVH is presented as being omnipresent and omniscient.” It does not follow that because YHVH is omnipresent and omniscient, that we should assume YHVH is giving these GMs unless proven otherwise.

I simply go along with the GMs -

Re the GMs mentioning YHVH/YHWH
March 2022 YHVH is mentioned 9 times
April 2022 YHVH is mentioned 8 times
May 2022 YHVH is mentioned 12 times
June 2022 YHVH is not mentioned
July 2022 YHVH is mentioned 24 times
August 2022 YHVH is mentioned 35 times
September 2022 YHVH is mentioned 129 times
October 2022 YHVH is mentioned 45 times

I am not claiming outright that YHVH is involved, but that the GMs are suggesting that this is the case, and I have no reason to doubt it isn't the case, as my understanding of YHVH's capabilities would have it that it could be the actual case.

What of the various devices you use in your connection with YHVH, have been "Proven" that you should assume YHVH gave those?

But nothing in the way of "very much fundamentally different" as you claim our interpretation of the quoted GM are...?

No, liberal Christians are just as fundamentally different from my beliefs as your beliefs are.

As long as discernment does not lead to judgementalism, I see no problem with things being 'fundamentally different' unless the phrase itself is borne on the winds of judgementalism.

The Pharisees in the story we were talking about. They didn’t call YHVH evil. Jesus said they were acting against YHVH’s agenda, however.

They thought that they were acting for YHVH’s agenda though, and that it was Jesus who was acting against YHVH's agenda, agreed?

New information has to be inserted into old information and if that means a reinterpretation occurs, this in itself should not prevent new information being inserted into old information.

Of course. But there needs to be good reason to do so.

And so we

Discern...without any accompanying judgmentalism...
[It allows for one to unravel to complexities]
Agreed?

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.
21: Discern...without any accompanying judgmentalism...

[The Tanager]

On personal experience, beliefs, and making a case

Knowledge is not about 100% certainty. Is belief about percentage?
You claim to believe in the resurrection - what percentage of belief do you have about that?

You asked for an example of a supported opinion. I said the earth being “round” is an example. You responded by saying belief and knowledge weren’t the same thing. I’m trying to figure out the distinction you are making here and why it’s important for that question. Can you help me out here?

That is a third option (parts being material and other parts immaterial) that, if true, would make the previous two both false, so my point remains.

I consider that your point is needlessly contrary.

You are wrong. If someone says YHVH is (only) material, a second person says YHVH is (only) immaterial, and a third says that YHVH is both material and immaterial, then we have three distinct views that all contradict each other. The third option does not agree with the first two. Two of these views have to be wrong.

Then I can expect that should you detect any contradiction, you would use the words of Jesus to
show it is the case.

That’s not the only way to show contradictions, but yes I will point out contradictions when I see them.


On YHVH being life

When one doesn't provide reliable sources/anything biblical to verify one's argument against my own, but only implies my argument is against scripture, one is effectively "going elsewhere"... our path on the matter is different...splits away..

Let’s keep the context of this statement in mind. You said being ontologically distinct from YHVH would mean not being able to trust YHVH. This isn’t a question of what the Bible says on the matter. I didn’t offer an argument against this claim, I simply asked you to support it. Your response was a claim that my posts here were showing a lack of trust. I’m trying to understand why you think that. The burden here is yours.

As to supporting the other things we are talking about, I am sharing my support, including bringing in the Bible when the issue calls for that.

Are you saying that you have trust in your direct communion with YHVH even while denying an ontologically unity? What percentage would you give to that trust?

I do have trust in that. Percentages, to me, are simply synonyms of: certain, nearly certain, more certain than not, undecided, probably not, definitely not or some scale like that. I’m fairly certain.

1. A difference of thought (about the same issue) is a separation.
2. There is a difference of thought between YHVH and me (namely, I think I’m separated from YHVH, but YHVH thinks I’m not separated from YHVH).
3. Therefore, there is a separation between YHVH and me.

It is incomplete, as you do not correctly include YHVH's point of view with your premises.

1. A difference of thought (about the same issue) is a separation.
2. There is a difference of thought between YHVH and me (namely, I think I’m separated from YHVH, but YHVH thinks I’m not separated from YHVH).
3. Therefore, there is a separation between YHVH and me, from my point of view but not from YHVH's point of view
4. I agree that it is an advantage to all grown personalities to be consciously and consistently connected with YVHV and thus understand and support YVHVs initiatives.
5. Therefore my belief that I am separate from YHVH is an illusion of my own making, based upon my own beliefs.

I did include YHVH’s point of view in my premises. It’s in premise 2: “YHVH thinks I’m not separated from YHVH”. How is that not including YHVH’s point of view? You’ve simply made premise 3 a restatement of premise 2.

Are you claiming that Jesus never taught about YHVH or encouraged individual personalities to connect with YHVH?

No, I claimed that “Jesus doesn’t teach that we are ontologically one, as far as I can see.”


On insight and judgment

I prefer not to conflate. Are you saying you are one of those "plenty" who use “judge” in multiple senses?
Are you willing not to, in respect for our discussion?

Of course I’m willing to; I was stating that we were in agreement there. I was simply making a comment that the term “judge” has those meanings and, so, when Christians talk about judging the speck in another’s eye, they aren’t talking about being judgmental.


On the garden story

So you claim. I see no accompanying reasoning for your declaration Tanager, so for now, have nothing more to add.

You made the declaration that following the storyline in rational honesty would lead to your position. I disagreed with that declaration and supported it by saying that since the text doesn’t directly address the question (which you seemed to agree with previously in our discussion) that one must use the context to support their case. Do you disagree? Do you think the text directly answers this question? Or do you think one needn’t look at the context?


On Generated Messages

At what point would you consider that the argument of coincidence would no longer be valid?

When the evidence shows it is something more than coincidence through any reliable source of information (science, history, philosophy, etc.).

My argument is that YHVH using such device as part of one's connect with YHVH, should be considered valid if you cannot show why it shouldn't be valid.
Since you agree that it could be, I see no reason as to why we cannot agree now and move on...

I never agreed that YHVH using such a device “should be considered valid if you cannot show why it shouldn’t be valid.” I only agreed that it’s logically possible that YHVH could use such a device. That is not enough to shift the burden on one’s opponent to show why it shouldn’t be valid.

I am not claiming outright that YHVH is involved, but that the GMs are suggesting that this is the case, and I have no reason to doubt it isn't the case, as my understanding of YHVH's capabilities would have it that it could be the actual case.

But you do have reasons to doubt this. All else being equal, it’s a much simpler answer to say the GMs are random than that they appear to be random (and limited by your choices and supplied meaning through your thoughts) but have a separate intelligent source behind them.

What of the various devices you use in your connection with YHVH, have been "Proven" that you should assume YHVH gave those?

My argument would begin with the historicity of the resurrection and the reliability that the NT records Jesus’ actual teaching.

As long as discernment does not lead to judgementalism, I see no problem with things being 'fundamentally different' unless the phrase itself is borne on the winds of judgementalism.

My comments were purely about discernment of the logics involved.

They thought that they were acting for YHVH’s agenda though, and that it was Jesus who was acting against YHVH's agenda, agreed?

Yes, but you didn’t write thought previously.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #148]

Knowledge is not about 100% certainty. Is belief about percentage?
You claim to believe in the resurrection - what percentage of belief do you have about that?

You asked for an example of a supported opinion. I said the earth being “round” is an example.

Okay - I am not convinced that the "earth is round" is an opinion based on belief. It seems to me it is a fact based upon knowledge.
Is there some reason why you think otherwise?

You responded by saying belief and knowledge weren’t the same thing.

Correct. These things shouldn't be conflated as far as I can tell. You appear to think differently, which is why I asked about percentages re belief.

I’m trying to figure out the distinction you are making here and why it’s important for that question. Can you help me out here?

The distinction is clear. If you believe the earth is round, rather than know that it is round, what percentage of belief do you hold about the earth being round?

Since you have expressed a solid belief in the resurrection, what percentage of belief do you hold re that?
Is your belief in that 100%? Less?

That is a third option (parts being material and other parts immaterial) that, if true, would make the previous two both false, so my point remains.

I consider that your point is needlessly contrary.

You are wrong. If someone says YHVH is (only) material, a second person says YHVH is (only) immaterial, and a third says that YHVH is both material and immaterial, then we have three distinct views that all contradict each other. The third option does not agree with the first two. Two of these views have to be wrong.

One would have to somehow show that YHVH can only be immaterial or material for such a case to be made.
What I said was that YHVH can be both, depending upon the situation.

There appears to be no reason as to why folk would believe in either the one or the other, but I am open to your explaining.

Or - we can agree that YHVH can be both material and immaterial.

Then I can expect that should you detect any contradiction, you would use the words of Jesus to show it is the case.

That’s not the only way to show contradictions, but yes I will point out contradictions when I see them.

Would you also consider not implying a contradiction is being made if you cannot show such as being the case?

Let’s keep the context of this statement in mind. You said being ontologically distinct from YHVH would mean not being able to trust YHVH.

I think there might be a case for this being so, yes. Based on your own argument re your children. I think it would be easier to trust someone ontological to you, than not.
The context of the statement goes back to my understanding the breath of YHVH as LIFE - and explained how you could not give life to your children.

I didn’t offer an argument against this claim, I simply asked you to support it. Your response was a claim that my posts here were showing a lack of trust. I’m trying to understand why you think that. The burden here is yours.

The lack of trust I saw had to do with your not trusting yourself in relationship with YHVH, and I connected that to your belief that YHVH is not LIFE.
YHVH is not the "God of the dead" - we are not the body which dies.

At this point we could agree to let this slide unless/until any other example arises re trust issues.

Are you saying that you have trust in your direct communion with YHVH even while denying an ontologically unity? What percentage would you give to that trust?

I do have trust in that. Percentages, to me, are simply synonyms of: certain, nearly certain, more certain than not, undecided, probably not, definitely not or some scale like that.

Yes - that is what I am meaning by percentages.

I’m fairly certain.

Which is likely why you feel okay about conflating belief with knowledge, as you pointed out that if knowledge is about 100% certainty, then we truly don’t “know” anything beyond pure mathematics and definitions. What belief do you hold which you consider you believe in 100%?

I did include YHVH’s point of view in my premises. It’s in premise 2: “YHVH thinks I’m not separated from YHVH”. How is that not including YHVH’s point of view? You’ve simply made premise 3 a restatement of premise 2.

Not to the point where you are able to agree with YHVH rather than continue to have your own, contrary point of view.

Are you claiming that Jesus never taught about YHVH or encouraged individual personalities to connect with YHVH?

No, I claimed that “Jesus doesn’t teach that we are ontologically one, as far as I can see.”

Then I take it you cannot provide any of Jesus' teaching which show he taught that we were not ontologically connected [re the breath of LIFE]?

Of course I’m willing to; I was stating that we were in agreement there. I was simply making a comment that the term “judge” has those meanings and, so, when Christians talk about judging the speck in another’s eye, they aren’t talking about being judgmental.

Thank you for the clarification as to your particular position on the matter.

So you claim. I see no accompanying reasoning for your declaration Tanager, so for now, have nothing more to add.

You made the declaration that following the storyline in rational honesty would lead to your position. I disagreed with that declaration and supported it by saying that since the text doesn’t directly address the question (which you seemed to agree with previously in our discussion) that one must use the context to support their case. Do you disagree? Do you think the text directly answers this question? Or do you think one needn’t look at the context?

I think that at this point we could move forward into delving into the garden story taking linear steps for each part and see if we cannot reach agreement through that process.

Do you agree?

I only agreed that it’s logically possible that YHVH could use such a device. That is not enough to shift the burden on one’s opponent to show why it shouldn’t be valid.

There is no burden as no claim was made other than the device could be utilized by YHVH. If you have reason why it couldn't, then you have yet to present that reason.

But you do have reasons to doubt this.

What reasons have I given?

All else being equal, it’s a much simpler answer to say the GMs are random than that they appear to be random

Do you have any evidence to support that true random actually exists? If so, I am interested in viewing that.
Otherwise, - while it may be 'simpler' to say the GMs are random, it may not be true.

(and limited by your choices and supplied meaning through your thoughts) but have a separate intelligent source behind them.

You will need to explain why this is somehow a problem.

What of the various devices you use in your connection with YHVH, have been "Proven" that you should assume YHVH gave those?

My argument would begin with the historicity of the resurrection and the reliability that the NT records Jesus’ actual teaching.

In what manner have these been proven?

At what point would you consider that the argument of coincidence would no longer be valid?

When the evidence shows it is something more than coincidence through any reliable source of information (science, history, philosophy, etc.).

If someone told you that they had asked YHVH for something and then received it, would you argue that it was 'just coincidence'?

[The Tanager]

Okay - I am not convinced that the "earth is round" is an opinion based on belief. It seems to me it is a fact based upon knowledge.
Is there some reason why you think otherwise?

All science is built upon philosophical assumptions including things like our ability to trust our senses, that we can know nature, that the shape of the earth is an objective fact, etc., so that one can’t say it’s 100% certain. It’s pretty close, though. To me, that makes it a (very well) supported opinion.

Correct. These things shouldn't be conflated as far as I can tell. You appear to think differently, which is why I asked about percentages re belief.

I have no idea if I think differently or not as I’m trying to figure out exactly what you mean in using those terms. If we are using percentages, what percentage would you say equates to ‘knowledge’? 100%? Something else?

Since you have expressed a solid belief in the resurrection, what percentage of belief do you hold re that?
Is your belief in that 100%? Less?

It is less than 100%. It is less than my belief that the Earth is “round”. It is still up there. If you want to give me a scale of percentages and what they equate to, then I’ll pick the number that best fits my answer.

One would have to somehow show that YHVH can only be immaterial or material for such a case to be made.
What I said was that YHVH can be both, depending upon the situation.

There appears to be no reason as to why folk would believe in either the one or the other, but I am open to your explaining.

Or - we can agree that YHVH can be both material and immaterial.

No, the default position is not that YHVH is both unless otherwise proven. All 3 positions share an equal burden. The agnostic position is simply “I don’t know”.

But arguing about which position is correct was not the point. I just used that as an example. I said that, although we agree on a lot of stuff, our conceptions of YHVH cannot both be true because of where they contradict each other. If you disagree, then show how all 3 positions in the example can all be true.

Would you also consider not implying a contradiction is being made if you cannot show such as being the case?

Where do you think I implied a contradiction was being made that I didn’t offer support for?

Let’s keep the context of this statement in mind. You said being ontologically distinct from YHVH would mean not being able to trust YHVH.

I think there might be a case for this being so, yes. Based on your own argument re your children. I think it would be easier to trust someone ontological to you, than not.

Sure, but making it easier to trust isn’t the same thing as making one unable to trust, which is what it sounded like you were saying and what I was responding to.

The lack of trust I saw had to do with your not trusting yourself in relationship with YHVH, and I connected that to your belief that YHVH is not LIFE.
YHVH is not the "God of the dead" - we are not the body which dies.

At this point we could agree to let this slide unless/until any other example arises re trust issues.

I don’t see how that is a lack of trust in YHVH, rather than a lack of trust in myself, but we can move on, if you want.

I did include YHVH’s point of view in my premises. It’s in premise 2: “YHVH thinks I’m not separated from YHVH”. How is that not including YHVH’s point of view? You’ve simply made premise 3 a restatement of premise 2.

Not to the point where you are able to agree with YHVH rather than continue to have your own, contrary point of view.

That’s the point. I would have my own view. YHVH and I would be differing in our thoughts. You agreed with premise 1 that a difference of thought (about the same issue) is a separation. Therefore, there is an objective separation between YHVH and me, not just from one perspective. YHVH would be aware of this differing in thoughts (i.e., a separation) as well. So, we end up with YHVH thinking we are separated but also thinking we are not separated. This is why one should rationally reject ontological oneness of YHVH and one’s self.

Then I take it you cannot provide any of Jesus' teaching which show he taught that we were not ontologically connected [re the breath of LIFE]?

I think it’s part of the whole underlying context. The large majority of Jewish people he lived and talked with assumed in ontological distinction, so he had plenty of opportunities to teach something counter to that and didn’t. It is in verses like Hosea 11:9, Numbers 23:19, Isaiah 55:8, Job 9:32, 1 Samuel 15:29 which Jesus taught was true (John 10:35, Matt 15:3, Mark 7:13, Matt 5:17-19, Matt 22:31, among others) and it’s implied in comparisons like Matthew 19:26.

I think that at this point we could move forward into delving into the garden story taking linear steps for each part and see if we cannot reach agreement through that process.

Sure. Lay out what you see in the context that Adam didn’t know he should trust YHVH.

There is no burden as no claim was made other than the device could be utilized by YHVH. If you have reason why it couldn't, then you have yet to present that reason.

You haven’t been saying that YHVH is using this device? You aren’t arguing that? If not, then ignore these next few pieces. If you are simply arguing “it’s logically possible that YHVH could use this kind of device,” then we agree.

Do you have any evidence to support that true random actually exists? If so, I am interested in viewing that.
Otherwise, - while it may be 'simpler' to say the GMs are random, it may not be true.

I agree that the simpler answer isn’t always true, but, all else being equal, the simpler answer is the more rational one until the more complex answer can carry the burden of shifting the equation back into its favor.

You agree that it appears to be random, but that this is an illusion. That’s why you asked for evidence that it is truly random. The evidence for it being truly random is the same that you would use for your conclusion that it appears to be random. You are using seemingly random numbers or other methods to generate the order of the words. But, on top of the randomness, the semblance of intelligence is provided by your intelligence as you use these methods on a word/phrase/video bank limited by your own subjective choices, many of which you already attach specific meanings to, and then you fill in the gaps of a vague message that I showed could be easily filled in with a completely opposite worldview in mind. You are basically arguing, “I know it looks that way, but it really isn’t.” That additional layer needs to be given support. The burden is on you to show that this is just an illusion, and that something else exists and better explains the situation.

My argument would begin with the historicity of the resurrection and the reliability that the NT records Jesus’ actual teaching.

In what manner have these been proven?

I didn’t say I had even argued for them here, much less proven anything. We have enough on our plate in looking at the rationality of accepting these GMs as being from YHVH.

If someone told you that they had asked YHVH for something and then received it, would you argue that it was 'just coincidence'?

It would depend on the details of the situation.