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]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #150]

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.

We could agree that the science appears well enough supported in that trusting our senses isn't an issue in regard to the roundness of the earth, to the point where we have to say we believe in such, rather than we know.

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.

Okay.

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.

I think that conflating words leads to confusion, and if the potential of confusion can be avoided, then do so. [Even in the very quintessence of the individual.]

If we are using percentages, what percentage would you say equates to ‘knowledge’? 100%? Something else?

With knowledge, we have something to measure. With belief, not so much.
[Explain "Think With The heart - Feel With The Mind", Slowly and Surely ]

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”.

What use is your belief that the earth is round that it is more believable to you than the resurrection?

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.

Your answer is fine the way you worded it. Based on your words, I simulated a scale on my mind-screen which showed me that your belief in the knowledge of the earth being round is more than your belief in the knowledge of the resurrection.

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”.

The position re Bible stories makes it evident that YHVH can present as both, but the stories do not divulge enough for us to contradict them with declarations that YHVH is only either material or non material.
Thus, YHVH can be both, because the stories present YHVH as being both. There is no 'equal burden' shared in those differing positions, biblically speaking.

[I am open to your showing me otherwise.]

But arguing about which position is correct was not the point.

It can prove helpful to The Point, when those positions are in opposition.

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.

I have not made any claim that our conceptions of YHVH are in contradiction.

Have/are you?

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

If you disagree, then show how all 3 positions in the example can all be true.

Rather, I have made a declaration that two of them cannot be true re the Biblical account of YHVH. Only the position I am pointing to, is biblically true. The other two are strange interpretations of alternate conceptions...of which I am unfamiliar with, but you appear to be familiar with and subscribe to, but have yet to support them biblically.

[or maybe you did and I missed it ]

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?

I will continue to let you know if/as you continue to do it...

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.

I am of the opinion that some positions individual personalities place themselves in, make it nigh on impossible for them to be able to trust some knowledge they are exposed to.
I do not know if this is the case with you, so in poking around there, I now get the impression this may not be the case with you - so my apologies for the doubt and I will attempt to take that into consideration as we proceed with our conversation.

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.

It has to do with understanding the relationship between YHVH and the growing personality and that YHVH wants the personality to understand [see] its self in the same way YHVH Understands [sees] the personality...the first hurdle appears to be your resistance to the realization of the ontological connect.

But yes - we can place that to one side - but I dear say it will pop up again soon enough ... as a shadow of sorts ...

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.

Which allows you the right to exercise your free will in resistance to a change of mind, correct?

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.

Nope.

The "rational" you argue comes from the fact that you purposefully resist seeing yourself as YHVH sees you re your potential as a growing personality to use your free will to engage with YHVH ontologically.
The resistance means that the potential use YHVH can have re a personality is limited to what the personality demands for itself, and YHVH will not interfere with such resistance, other than point it out as opportunity to do so affords that to happen.

The belief that "one should rationally reject ontological oneness of YHVH and one’s self" is not rational because it assumes the one in order to reject the other.

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.

Yet Jesus speaks of his own ontological connect with YHVH and the religious ones have a fit, see red, and sometime want to murder him.

I will take that such things were not often spoken publicly for the sake of not stirring the pot, and the biblical account of Jesus is more specific to his public ministry.

In that, what we do know is Jesus made lots of public remarks about the individual personality connecting with YHVH and we should be able to agree that the topic was at the top of his list re importance...we should also be able to take from that, that Jesus knew that YHVH would instruct any such personality in the ways of YHVH, through the establishing of said connect - individual personality and YHVH. [One by One]

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.

Okay.

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

Instead of going to others...

The burden is on you to show that this is just an illusion, and that something else exists and better explains the situation.

The burden is on me to explain to a Christian how YHVH is a real mind behind the apparent physical universe, and that the mind of YHVH is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent - therefore there is no 'random' that is true?

Unfortunately, I wouldn't know where to begin to try and convince a Christian of such a thing...

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

William: In what manner have these been proven?

I didn’t say I had even argued for them here, much less proven anything.

I ask, because the manner in which you have had these proven, should be able to be used to prove the GM's.

We have enough on our plate in looking at the rationality of accepting these GMs as being from YHVH.

Indeed...

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.

___________________________________________________
Re: Generating Messages *Perhaps Free Will, is the ability to tell one's brain what to think 4*
___________________________________________________

The Garden Story:

And YHVH formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. [Genesis 2:7]

I have chosen to start here to cut to the chase.
We already disagree that this is the point of ontological connect between YHVH and the human personality [Adam - in this case.]

In this sense we might agree that the installation of life which made the human form a living thing [alive] was of YHVH to the point where the breath is shared as necessary to the form being able to be animated.

[The Tanager]

If we are using percentages, what percentage would you say equates to ‘knowledge’? 100%? Something else?

With knowledge, we have something to measure. With belief, not so much.
[Explain "Think With The heart - Feel With The Mind", Slowly and Surely ]

I don’t understand your response, could you rephrase it?

What use is your belief that the earth is round that it is more believable to you than the resurrection?

I don’t understand your question, could you rephrase it?

I have not made any claim that our conceptions of YHVH are in contradiction.

Have/are you?

Yes, and I’ve given support.

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

I agree. I also think that what we disagree on can be a part of us forming a better relationship with each other.

Rather, I have made a declaration that two of them cannot be true re the Biblical account of YHVH. Only the position I am pointing to, is biblically true. The other two are strange interpretations of alternate conceptions...of which I am unfamiliar with, but you appear to be familiar with and subscribe to, but have yet to support them biblically.

I have not offered my position since I was making a different point about how mutually exclusive positions can’t both be true.

I am of the opinion that some positions individual personalities place themselves in, make it nigh on impossible for them to be able to trust some knowledge they are exposed to.
I do not know if this is the case with you, so in poking around there, I now get the impression this may not be the case with you - so my apologies for the doubt and I will attempt to take that into consideration as we proceed with our conversation.

Thank you.

Which allows you the right to exercise your free will in resistance to a change of mind, correct?

Correct.

The "rational" you argue comes from the fact that you purposefully resist seeing yourself as YHVH sees you re your potential as a growing personality to use your free will to engage with YHVH ontologically.
The resistance means that the potential use YHVH can have re a personality is limited to what the personality demands for itself, and YHVH will not interfere with such resistance, other than point it out as opportunity to do so affords that to happen.

The belief that "one should rationally reject ontological oneness of YHVH and one’s self" is not rational because it assumes the one in order to reject the other.

I think I’m separated from YHVH. Does YHVH think that I think I’m separated from YHVH?

Yet Jesus speaks of his own ontological connect with YHVH and the religious ones have a fit, see red, and sometime want to murder him.

I will take that such things were not often spoken publicly for the sake of not stirring the pot, and the biblical account of Jesus is more specific to his public ministry.

In that, what we do know is Jesus made lots of public remarks about the individual personality connecting with YHVH and we should be able to agree that the topic was at the top of his list re importance...we should also be able to take from that, that Jesus knew that YHVH would instruct any such personality in the ways of YHVH, through the establishing of said connect - individual personality and YHVH. [One by One]

Yes, Jesus is YHVH. That doesn’t mean we are. I shared passages that seem to teach ontological distinction. Do you think I’ve misinterpreted them or do you think I’ve correctly interpreted them, but they are just wrong? Or an option I’m missing?

Your argument seems to be that we have no recorded teaching of ontological oneness (except Jesus claiming it about himself, not other humans), but we should expect that to be the case, that Jesus really believed it anyway, taught the opposite, but trusted YHVH to correct them later.

The burden is on me to explain to a Christian how YHVH is a real mind behind the apparent physical universe, and that the mind of YHVH is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent - therefore there is no 'random' that is true?

Unfortunately, I wouldn't know where to begin to try and convince a Christian of such a thing...

Yes, explain the logical connection between YHVH being omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent (which I agree with) and there being no such thing as “random”. The latter does not logically follow from the first, as far as I can tell.

I ask, because the manner in which you have had these proven, should be able to be used to prove the GM's.

I’m sharing the framework, not making a full blown argument:

The historicity of the resurrection is a two-step argument that establishes the facts of the event and then makes a philosophical argument using those facts. If Jesus resurrected, then this is evidence that He is who He says He was; YHVH with us. If Jesus is YHVH, then what Jesus taught is true. The historical reliability of the NT documents accurately give us what Jesus taught. Jesus taught that the Holy Spirit would guide those of the new covenant into truth, while not contradicting Scripture, which would have been the whole Tanakh/Old Testament. The original body of Jesus’ followers, guided by the Spirit, also called what has been collected as the New Testament, scripture. These scriptures don’t contradict themselves in what they teach. They teach things like praying to YHVH, reading the scriptures, testing the spirits with the measure of truth found in the scriptures, and the like.

Does this help you formulate your case for the GMs?

And YHVH formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. [Genesis 2:7]

I have chosen to start here to cut to the chase.
We already disagree that this is the point of ontological connect between YHVH and the human personality [Adam - in this case.]

In this sense we might agree that the installation of life which made the human form a living thing [alive] was of YHVH to the point where the breath is shared as necessary to the form being able to be animated.

What do you mean the “breath is shared”? I do agree that YHVH is necessary for a human to be alive.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #152]

If we are using percentages, what percentage would you say equates to ‘knowledge’? 100%? Something else?

With knowledge, we have something to measure. With belief, not so much.
[Explain "Think With The heart - Feel With The Mind", Slowly and Surely ]

I don’t understand your response, could you rephrase it?

Knowledge and subsequent belief of the roundness of the earth is more measurable than knowledge and subsequent belief of the resurrection.
Thus, your belief in the roundness of the earth has more percentage than your belief in the resurrection.

What use is your belief that the earth is round that it is more believable to you than the resurrection?

I don’t understand your question, could you rephrase it?

IF your belief that the earth is round is more believable to you than your belief in the resurrection

THEN How more useful to you is your belief that the earth is round, than your belief in the resurrection?

I have not made any claim that our conceptions of YHVH are in contradiction.

Have/are you?

Yes, and I’ve given support.

I have seen no contradictions in what you have thus far provided in the way of evidence.

You did state that there was fundamental contradiction in the way we interpreted the GM quoted, but you did not go so far as to explain what those contradictions were, so I can't comment on something that was not provided for me to comment/argue about.

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

I agree.

I will add that to our agreement list;
Agreement List:
1: We exist within a creation.
2: Simulation Theory is a valid way to interpret the Biblical stories.
3: YVHV placed humans into this universe to grow personalities.
4: The purpose of YVHV growing human personalities is so that these would potentially gain experience of the truth of the reason for their environment and their temporary experience within it.
5: It is an advantage to all grown personalities to be consciously and consistently connected with YVHV and thus understand and support YVHVs initiatives.
6: Human personalities - upon the death of their body-sets - move on to other experiences.
7: Anything which changes is not the same thing as it once was.
8: YHVH is not a simulation.
9: YHVH's agenda continues regardless of whether humans understand good or evil the way YHVH understands it, or not
10: A resurrected body does not imply the same body
11: YHVH does not practice evil
12: Those who act against the agenda of YHVH, accuse YHVH of being evil.
13: YVHV uses what YVHV will to get the message across...
14: Simulation Theory can fit with the story of Jesus’ ascension.
15: Simulation Theory can validate non-biblical stories as well.
16: Things experienced in simulation are still real experiences
17: We cannot say - either of the story of Jesus, or indeed, any other Biblical story - that these stories do not reveal simulation theory.
18: We must continually question the teachings we’ve bought into, what we grew up in, what we want to be true, etc.
19: Insights come naturally to those who are in genuine relationship with YHVH
20: Those who are in genuine relationship with YHVH recognize the similarity while also acknowledging the unique in others who are also in genuine relationship with YHVH.
21: Discern...without any accompanying judgmentalism...
22: What we do agree on, can help us formulate a better relationship with each other, re YHVH.

I also think that what we disagree on can be a part of us forming a better relationship with each other.

I disagree in that I am not interested in forming relationships with Christians, without YHVH.

Whether that difference is applicable to our being able to build a better relationship with each other, re YHVH...is yet undetermined...it is currently being worked upon.

Agreed?

Rather, I have made a declaration that two of them cannot be true re the Biblical account of YHVH. Only the position I am pointing to, is biblically true. The other two are strange interpretations of alternate conceptions...of which I am unfamiliar with, but you appear to be familiar with and subscribe to, but have yet to support them biblically.

I have not offered my position since I was making a different point about how mutually exclusive positions can’t both be true.

Then it hardly matters that what you offered in the other two, as they are surplus to our particular discussion unless you make it plain you are arguing for either one of them.

If you are not arguing for either one of them, do we agree together that the Biblical account of YHVH shows us that YHVH can be either material or non material?

The "rational" you argue comes from the fact that you purposefully resist seeing yourself as YHVH sees you re your potential as a growing personality to use your free will to engage with YHVH ontologically.
The resistance means that the potential use YHVH can have re a personality is limited to what the personality demands for itself, and YHVH will not interfere with such resistance, other than point it out as opportunity to do so affords that to happen.

The belief that "one should rationally reject ontological oneness of YHVH and one’s self" is not rational because it assumes the one in order to reject the other.

I think I’m separated from YHVH.

I tentatively agree with your self-assessment. You do appear to be separate from YHVH re your belief that you are separate from YHVH.

Does YHVH think that I think I’m separated from YHVH?

What I know is that you think your are separate from YHVH. Does that make YHVH not take more notice of you? Stuff like that?

My thinking involves the idea that I am not separate from YHVH. How that equates to your and my relationship-building may involve me attempting to help you to see yourself as I think YHVH sees all personalities - as potentially able to each come to a point in their earthly journey where there are no boarders between said personalities and YHVH - The Grower of Personalities.

Yes, Jesus is YHVH. That doesn’t mean we are.

Are you suggesting that Jesus never meant for us to be like him in that regard?

In reading Jesus, I don't get that this is what he was teaching - that he is YHVH and the rest of us can consider ourselves fortunate just to be personalities beholding to him...I think the teaching runs way deeper than such superficiality...
YHVH is far too deep for that,

Agreed?

I shared passages that seem to teach ontological distinction. Do you think I’ve misinterpreted them or do you think I’ve correctly interpreted them, but they are just wrong? Or an option I’m missing?

I replied my thoughts on what you offered as support. I think my answer was adequate and logical consistent.
You already understand that how a personality interprets anything has to do with the personalities beliefs/thinking.
This in itself does not mean that one has been shown to be incorrect and the other correct.
That point has yet to be reached.

Agreed?

Your argument seems to be that we have no recorded teaching of ontological oneness (except Jesus claiming it about himself, not other humans), but we should expect that to be the case, that Jesus really believed it anyway, taught the opposite, but trusted YHVH to correct them later.

No. It is your argument that Jesus "taught the opposite" because it is also your argument that there are contradictions.

I have not seen convincing evidence from you that there is any contradiction.

I do not have to provide evidence to support something I am not even arguing.

The burden is on me to explain to a Christian how YHVH is a real mind behind the apparent physical universe, and that the mind of YHVH is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent - therefore there is no 'random' that is true?

Unfortunately, I wouldn't know where to begin to try and convince a Christian of such a thing...

Yes, explain the logical connection between YHVH being omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent (which I agree with) and there being no such thing as “random”. The latter does not logically follow from the first, as far as I can tell.

Why do you say that? Are you claiming that such a thing as absolute randomness actually exists?
And with that, are you saying that YHVH [attributes mentioned] would be hard tasked to out-know this conceptual idea of absolute randomness?

I ask, because the manner in which you have had these proven, should be able to be used to prove the GM's.

I’m sharing the framework, not making a full blown argument:

Well if it comes up again, we will take a closer look. In the meantime it can remain on the table, but in the shadows.

Does this help you formulate your case for the GMs?

It doesn't appear to contradict my case for the GM's. So in that sense it isn't unhelpful.

What contradictions do you see, which you can clearly present as actual contradictions?

What do you mean the “breath is shared”?

That YHVH is the life that is necessary for a human to be alive

I do agree that YHVH is necessary for a human to be alive.

Have you changed your mind then, and now agree that YHVH is LIFE?

[The Tanager]

Knowledge and subsequent belief of the roundness of the earth is more measurable than knowledge and subsequent belief of the resurrection.
Thus, your belief in the roundness of the earth has more percentage than your belief in the resurrection.

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I agree.

IF your belief that the earth is round is more believable to you than your belief in the resurrection

THEN How more useful to you is your belief that the earth is round, than your belief in the resurrection?

I don’t think the percentage difference necessarily has much to do with one belief’s usefulness over another. The earth being round isn’t a useful belief for much in life, while the resurrection is THE foundational event in our relationship with YHVH.

I disagree in that I am not interested in forming relationships with Christians, without YHVH.

Whether that difference is applicable to our being able to build a better relationship with each other, re YHVH...is yet undetermined...it is currently being worked upon.

I’m not sure that I understand the “re YHVH” part? Could you rephrase this?

If you are not arguing for either one of them, do we agree together that the Biblical account of YHVH shows us that YHVH can be either material or non material?

I believe YHVH is immaterial, but can use matter to “metaphorically” point to features of YHVH’s character and nature. Is that the same thing you are saying?

What I know is that you think your are separate from YHVH. Does that make YHVH not take more notice of you? Stuff like that?

I need a little help understanding how this answers my question. Is YHVH aware that I think I’m separate from YHVH? Does YHVH know that I think I’m separate from YHVH?

Are you suggesting that Jesus never meant for us to be like him in that regard?

Yes. At no point does Jesus teach that we are YHVH.

In reading Jesus, I don't get that this is what he was teaching - that he is YHVH and the rest of us can consider ourselves fortunate just to be personalities beholding to him...I think the teaching runs way deeper than such superficiality...
YHVH is far too deep for that,

I didn’t say anything equivalent to the bolded part; I just said that Jesus is YHVH and we are not.

I replied my thoughts on what you offered as support. I think my answer was adequate and logical consistent.
You already understand that how a personality interprets anything has to do with the personalities beliefs/thinking.
This in itself does not mean that one has been shown to be incorrect and the other correct.
That point has yet to be reached.

If the point of my question was the one you said hasn’t been reached yet in your response, then how is that an adequate response?

Why do you say that? Are you claiming that such a thing as absolute randomness actually exists?

I’m not claiming anything; I’m asking you why you think YHVH being omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent would mean there is no such thing as “absolute randomness”. That was your claim and I’m asking you to support it.

And with that, are you saying that YHVH [attributes mentioned] would be hard tasked to out-know this conceptual idea of absolute randomness?

I’m not sure what it means to “out-know this conceptual idea of absolute randomness,” could you rephrase it?

It doesn't appear to contradict my case for the GM's. So in that sense it isn't unhelpful.

What contradictions do you see, which you can clearly present as actual contradictions?

What is your case? Your conclusion isn’t sound unless I share contradictions; you have the burden to support your conclusion.

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

That YHVH is the life that is necessary for a human to be alive.

Agreed.

Have you changed your mind then, and now agree that YHVH is LIFE?

No, because you said “YHVH is LIFE” includes the concept of ontological oneness, which is different than saying YHVH is necessary for a human to be alive.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #154]

At no point does Jesus teach that we are YHVH.

What is YHVH, in your opinion?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #154]

At no point does Jesus teach that we are YHVH.

What is YHVH, in your opinion?

YHVH is the only necessary being. YHVH is eternal. YHVH is perfectly good. YHVH is perfectly loving. YHVH is our creator. YHVH is distinct from YHVH's creation. I have a ton of beliefs about what YHVH is and I don't feel like listing everything here. Do you mean this question in a more specific way?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #154]

At no point does Jesus teach that we are YHVH.

What is YHVH, in your opinion?

YHVH is the only necessary being. YHVH is eternal. YHVH is perfectly good. YHVH is perfectly loving. YHVH is our creator. YHVH is distinct from YHVH's creation. I have a ton of beliefs about what YHVH is and I don't feel like listing everything here. Do you mean this question in a more specific way?

I asked the question to see if it might help us coordinate the discussion in some straightforward direction rather than these roundabouts.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #154]

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

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

Why not interpret the message like this:

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

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

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

[William]

On YHVH

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

Agreed?

Today's GM clearly gives the reader enough insight into my thinking, to determine how I understand YHVH and my relationship with YHVH.

viewtopic.php?p=1099707#p1099707

As well as this, the GM includes a quote from me regarding my thoughts on confirmation bias - something you mentioned as part of your critique.

The information re today's GM is relevant to our current discussion and as such, is not regarded by me as "merely coincidence."

Link to highlight - [navigational aid]
_____________________________________________
On - Individual personalities and their relationship with YHVH

You and I - so far - have agreed together, these things to do with YHVH.

Agreement List:

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

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

[William]

The place where we have stopped re the Bible, is at the beginning and until this is sorted, there is no path for us to walk.

It may be that we have to actually make the path together re our agreement in order for things to move forward.

Or, we can - at this point - cease trying.