William Getting On The Same Page With Divine Insight

[William]

Okay - the other thread derailed - or rather, went off on another line of argument...

So here's the deal.

Q: Would you like to be one the same page as me?

I would like to get on the same page with you. This thread is my expression of being proactive in regards to getting on the same page with you.

Do you have the list of these supposed 'false claims' you claim I have made?

Your MAIN CLAIM that I have contended that Christians are mindless slaves. I clearly never said that.

At first, yes, you did. After I made the initial noise about it, you explained yourself and I accepted that but didn't let you off the hook because I decided that you filling in the gaps after the fact was a poor move in relation to integrity. (Honesty)

Is it true the I view the Biblical Yahweh in the way I've described. Yes, absolutely! But what's wrong with that? Most Christians don't support Yahweh anyway. Most Christians follow Jesus not Yahweh. In fact, many Christians have the same problems with Yahweh as I do.

My opinion on that is this:

Biblical Yahweh is a story of a GOD from ancient times. The IDEA of GOD is allowed to evolve with the collective human psyche, but the old ideas have to be replaced with new ones in order for that to align. Without that alignment, humans may end up killing themselves and thus, GOD will die with them.

Biblical Yahweh is a GOD idea that hasn't evolved along with humanity but still exists as an ancient idea and most obviously has the most supporters. (Don't forget the Arabs.)

Thus Most Christians do indeed follow Yahwah, and so too, do most atheists, only of course the atheists don't like the idea of that which is why they are atheists.

Many Christians may indeed have the same Problem with Yahwah as you do, but my Divine Insight sees things differently.
I am not a Christian, but it could be said of me that I am, like you call yourself, and 'enlightened Christian'.

I will let YOU be the judge of that, and perhaps that is the starting point of our journey into the wilderness of the Same Page.

I even pointed out in this very thread that Jesus himself apparently did not care much for commandments that had been attributed to Yahweh. He obviously rebuked them himself.

That is because Yahwah commanded him to because of the way the commandments had been abused.

From Moses to Jesus, it became very clear that 10 wee commandments we far too many to be handing out to humans because of how they manipulated them into thousands of sub clauses for easy access into the realm of - I shall call it - "Legal Disobedience" and in that, society Went To The Devil.

The Devil is Yahweh's imaginary opponent. AS with all things imagined by Yahweh, they become very real.

Anyway, it was Jesus' task to bring in the shorter version of the commandments - and the point from Moses on the mount to the time of Jesus on another mount (or was it the same mount?) was used by the Yawehians as a time for planning and waiting for the right moment to implement those plans.

A lot of Christians have serious problems with the Old Testament narrative of Yahweh. That's why that would much rather focus on Jesus.

In my opinion, they focus more on Paul, who again, brought in many sub clauses to explain what Jesus apparently hadn't or couldn't or wouldn't explain, or whatever.

Very few Christians that I know of, follow after Jesus

How many Christians do you hear singing praise to Yahweh?

Indirectly or directly?

They are far more likely to be singing praise to Jesus!

Indirectly then - Jesus was the softer evolving version of Yahweh, presented at a time when there was some hope of him catching on with the human imagination...and indeed, it appears to have done so...

Can you show me a Christian Song entitled "What a Friend We Have in Yahweh"?
Also, do you see Christians teaching their children to sing:

Yahweh loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.

Nope, they teach their children that Jesus loves them, not Yahweh.

Indirectly - Yahweh loves them through the effigy of Jesus. Before Jesus, Yahweh had no form...and it is just as well by all accounts...otherwise if Moses had looked at him, the tribes would not have got their instructions.

Jesus is the 'new improved' Yahweh now tolerable to the human eye and able to mingle without his presence causing people to drop dead of fright.

In fact, I claim that the vast majority of Christians don't like Yahweh at all. If you were to ask them to give up Jesus and become Jews who worship Yahweh they would say forget it. They would probably rather become atheists.

Good point. Historically Jews were even murdered by Christians, as if Jesus would ever condone such behavior from humans, let alone condone it being done in his name! Essentially such Christians would be regarded by Jesus and Yahweh, certainly as atheists, but even more so as diabolical.
After all, the rules had changed, or to be more correct, simplified to be understood as they were always intended to be understood...due largely to the conferencing of the Yahwehians in developing on their plans for humanity, and how to correct that path through tweaking by the hand(s) of God(s).

Take Jesus out of Christianity and most Christians would tell Yahweh to go jump in his lake of fire.

That sounds like you just said it was Yahweh's lake of fire. Isn't it Jesus' lake of fire?

They tend to not like Yahweh anymore than atheists do.

From what I have experienced, atheists don't even like Jesus. (or is that 'some atheists?'... I get confused)
So what is your point there?

Anyway, have a think about it and if you can see by your map if what I say helps you find "The Plateau of The Same Page" and if you are able to use your Compass of Divine Insight, (The Right Tool For The Job - It Is One Of Those Things) as intended, perhaps together we can get there?

[Divine Insight]

Biblical Yahweh is a story of a GOD from ancient times. The IDEA of GOD is allowed to evolve with the collective human psyche, but the old ideas have to be replaced with new ones in order for that to align. Without that alignment, humans may end up killing themselves and thus, GOD will die with them.

Humans often do kill each other in the name of the Biblical God. In fact, isn't that a major problem today with ISIS? The Qur'an is the same God as the Bible. This sort of thing has gone on throughout all of history.

This is why many atheists and secularists suggest we would be better off without religion. Ever hear John Lennon's song "Imagine"?

And besides there's no room in the Bible for the Biblical God to evolve because the Bible makes it clear in several different places that its God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. So there's no room in the Bible to morph the Biblical God into something different from what the Bible claims God to be.

They tend to not like Yahweh anymore than atheists do.

From what I have experienced, atheists don't even like Jesus. (or is that 'some atheists?'... I get confused)
So what is your point there?

I know many secularists and atheists who have no problem at all with Jesus. What they have a problem with is when Jesus is being held up as the Son of Yahweh.

And my point was that even Christian Theists have moral issues with the Biblical Yahweh and they struggle with this, both in their need to constantly makes apologies for this God (i.e. explanations for why the obviously immoral things he does aren't really immoral), and in struggling with keeping their own faith.

Many priests and pastors have openly confessed that they have difficulties with the what the Bible has to say about God. And many of them just toss their hands in the air and say, "We just need to have faith that God has explanations for these things that we'll learn about after we die and go to heaven".

But doesn't that already show that even they have problems with the actual dogma?

Christian theists wouldn't need to be in the business of apologetics in the first place if even they didn't already recognize the problems in the doctrines they try to support as being a true description of their God.

In fact, I've already pointed out how many times? Christians themselves can't even agree with each other on exactly what the Christian story should even be.

This isn't me making this stuff up. Just look around. How many disagreeing sects of Christianity do you count? I see more than I can keep track of.

If you think this is about me, you are sadly mistaken. This problem would exist for Christianity even if I had never been born.

Your personal obsession with me is ridiculous. It's the Christian theists who have a major problem of being extremely inconsistent and in disagreement with each other.

I'll be more than happy. THRILLED actually. If the Christian theists could ever come together with a SINGLE Christianity. At least then we could take a look at what they actually have. As it is right now, they don't appear to have any consistent picture of this religion. They all disagree with each other. And we really can't ignore the Jews and Muslims either. It's all based on the the same original folklore.

This has nothing to do with me at all. I could disappear altogether and they would still have all the same problems they have right now.

But I do appreciate your thought that I could somehow be that important.

If you want to be on the same page with me, then welcome to REALITY.

That's the page I'm on.

[William]

For me at least, what Christians, Arabs, or Jews are doing in the name of GOD, isn't here nor there, as I explained in my first post.

Your personal obsession with me is ridiculous.

Nope - not obsession. Just looking for any opportunity to get on the same page.

[Divine Insight]

For me at least, what Christians, Arabs, or Jews are doing in the name of GOD, isn't here nor there, as I explained in my first post.

Your personal obsession with me is ridiculous.

Nope - not obsession. Just looking for any opportunity to get on the same page.

Well, I'm not sure what is it that you desire. You say you aren't obsessed with me, but of all the members on this forum you seem to have singled me out as the person you would like to get on the "same page" with.

And I'm not even sure what you mean by that.

I can offer you my position on any particular topic you choose and you can decide whether or not you are on the "same page". I'm personally not the least bit concerned with whether or not I'm on the "same page" with you.

On the topic of Biblical Theology my position is very simple.

My Position on Biblical Theology: It is my position that the Biblical Canon cannot be true as it is written. It simply contains too many self-contradictions. It also contains what I personally consider to be immoral principles in many places. I openly confess that this latter view is entirely a subjective evaluation on my part (i.e. opinion). This is necessarily true in my case because I believe that humans invented the entire concept of morality and it is therefore nothing more than our subjective opinion. However, I hold that the former (i.e. that the Bible contains extreme self-contradictions as it is written) is not open for opinion. I consider that observation to be an observed fact of reality.

So what would it mean for you to get on the same page with me in terms of Biblical Theology? Well, it would mean that you both understand and agree with the above position.

If you disagree with my position on Biblical theology then you are clearly on a different page.

And that's ok. But then you need to make a case for the page your on. I may or may not be interested in even hearing your case. After all, many people are on "pages" that I totally disagree with. I have no need to be on the "same page" with everyone else.

I have different ideas concerning the more abstract concepts of a potential mystical or spiritual essence of reality. I would be glad to discuss those as well, but that would be a different topic entirely.

I can also tell you the "pages" I am on in terms of philosophy, science, and any other topic you care to discuss. Whether or not you are on the same page on those topics is up to you. I don't need for you to be on the same page as me. You are the one who seems to want to get on the same page with me.

And again, why did you single me out on these forums? What makes me stand out above all the other members here that sparked your interest in being on the same page with me?

Or am I just the first member you are going to try to get on the same page with?

I don't think it's realistic to try to get on the same page with everyone because everyone simply isn't on the same page.

The page I'm on concerning Biblical Theology is very clear:

It is my position that the Biblical Canon cannot be true as it is written. It simply contains too many self-contradictions.

If you want to talk about "Christendom" that's a whole other topic. There are countless variations and disagreements in what people who call themselves "Christians" believe. The Christians aren't even close to being on the same page with each other. And they most certainly aren't on the same page with me when it comes to the Hebrew Bible.

As far as Christians are concerned, I'm not only an atheist with respect to the Biblical God, but I'm also an anti-theist with respect to their specific theologies. A actually argue that those theologies are clearly false. The cannot be anything other than man-made superstitious tales.

That's the page I'm on. It's up to you to decide whether or not you are on the same page.

[William]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

I can also tell you the "pages" I am on in terms of philosophy, science, and any other topic you care to discuss. Whether or not you are on the same page on those topics is up to you. I don't need for you to be on the same page as me. You are the one who seems to want to get on the same page with me. Very Happy

Yes I am.

And again, why did you single me out on these forums?

You singled yourself out really. You are all over certain sections of the forum and it was you who first made a bee-line for me, here in this post> [linky]

What makes me stand out above all the other members here that sparked your interest in being on the same page with me?

Your continued disagreeing with me. Hence the offer to see if this can be done - here in the one thread dedicated to that. Like a sand-pit where we can play together or throw sand in each others eyes.

I don't think either one of us really wants to throw sand though...I don't have the urge to do so, anyway...so yeah, if it works out there is no 'same page' with us, so be it - anything else is meaningless argument from that point on between you and I.

Or am I just the first member you are going to try to get on the same page with?

I don't think it's realistic to try to get on the same page with everyone because everyone simply isn't on the same page.

Same story - different page. Different way the story is being read.

[Divine Insight]

You singled yourself out really. You are all over certain sections of the forum and it was you who first made a bee-line for me, here in this post> [linky]

I wasn't even thinking about you in that thread. I was addressing the TOPIC you had proposed.

In fact, I made that pretty clear in the first few paragraphs of my post. I was talking about worldview "models". Not about you.

What makes me stand out above all the other members here that sparked your interest in being on the same page with me?

Your continued disagreeing with me. Hence the offer to see if this can be done - here in the one thread dedicated to that. Like a sand-pit where we can play together or throw sand in each others eyes.

I don't think either one of us really wants to throw sand though...I don't have the urge to do so, anyway...so yeah, if it works out there is no 'same page' with us, so be it - anything else is meaningless argument from that point on between you and I.

I don't share your hostile take on all of this. Apparently you seem to have taken a disagreement about our worldviews in some personal way. I don't think of things that way at all.

So perhaps that is the "page" that we are clearly not on together?

To remedy that you'll need to move over to the 'page' of discussing actual topics. It's that easy.

I don't think it's realistic to try to get on the same page with everyone because everyone simply isn't on the same page.

Same story - different page. Different way the story is being read.

I have no clue what you are even talking about now. If you had concerns about the topic in the thread you linked to you should have clarified your concerns there. And just stuck with the topic instead of getting side-tracked into creating a personal thread about getting on the 'same page' with a specific forum member.

In the thread you linked to I was simply trying to point out that Buddhism already has a very self-consistent philosophy that is based upon an imagined "Mind of God", or FSC (First Source Consciousness), or whatever you care to call it.

You had confessed that your ideas still had problems that needed to be worked out. I simply pointed out that Buddhism has already worked out all their problems.

That's all.

So what would it mean for you and I to get on the "Same Page" with respect to that?

What do you want or expect from me?

I recognize Buddhism as already being a self-consistent philosophy for an imagined FSC. You have confessed that your theories for an FSC are not yet fully fleshed out.

So what exactly do you want from me?

[William]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

You asked and I answered. It isn't about the other thread. I just pointed to that as a first encounter - because you asked 'why' I had created a thread to see if we could find a way to get on the same page.

Why did you decide to twist that into something other than what I was saying in answer to your question?

This is a general chat forum and the invite was to you personally and nothing wrong in that at all.

I would do that with any member I feel is consistently at odds with me, just in an effort to see if something can be found mutually agreeable, as per my OP comment;

Okay - the other thread derailed - or rather, went off on another line of argument...

So here's the deal.

Q: Would you like to be one the same page as me?

I would like to get on the same page with you. This thread is my expression of being proactive in regards to getting on the same page with you.
It is obvious I am interested in seeing if this can be achieved and I am quite satisfied that - at least for now, it cannot be.

I have seen by your replies that you appear not to be interested in giving that a go, so for now at least I have my answer.

Perhaps at another time we might revisit this, but - I am sure you will agree - there is no point taking this any further as it has run ts course.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 7 by William]

Please see the following thread for further discussions along the lines of your concerns William

Questions for William: What page are you on?

[William]

I don't often start threads asking specific members questions, but recently William has been proclaiming that he would like to get on the same page with me, and he has been pursuing this goal throughout many different topic threads thus contaminating all those threads with this specific theme.

That is not very honest of you. I made it clear in the OP why I started this thread.

Okay - the other thread derailed - or rather, went off on another line of argument...

It was you who was 'contaminating' that other thread. I use that word since you have accused me of this. Really it was you who persisted in being off topic in that other thread, which is why I created this thread.

Perhaps you would like the opportunity to withdraw your accusation about me and get in line with truthfulness?

If you want me to look at your questions, I suggest that you rethink your approach and start again, perhaps even engaging with real Divine Insight as part of that process.

[Divine Insight]

I don't often start threads asking specific members questions, but recently William has been proclaiming that he would like to get on the same page with me, and he has been pursuing this goal throughout many different topic threads thus contaminating all those threads with this specific theme.

That is not very honest of you. I made it clear in the OP why I started this thread.

I don't see where you have any desire at all to get on the same page I'm on.

Clearly you are "PREACHING" your personal religious views and basically expecting me to conform to the page you are on.

Let's take a look at some of the things you said in the OP of this very thread:

I even pointed out in this very thread that Jesus himself apparently did not care much for commandments that had been attributed to Yahweh. He obviously rebuked them himself.

That is because Yahwah commanded him to because of the way the commandments had been abused.

My claim is based on what the Gospel stories actually attribute to Jesus having supposedly said and done.

You claim is based on some idea that you supposedly know what Yahweh is doing and why he is doing those things.

Why should I accept that Yahweh even exists, much less that you know his motivations?

The Devil is Yahweh's imaginary opponent. AS with all things imagined by Yahweh, they become very real.

Why should I believe that an imagined God named Yahweh exists, much less that things he supposedly imagines become very real?

And what would this have to do with you getting on the same page with me?

This sounds like you expect me to just accept all your unverifiable claims so that I can be on the page you imagine to be on.

A lot of Christians have serious problems with the Old Testament narrative of Yahweh. That's why that would much rather focus on Jesus

.

In my opinion, they focus more on Paul, who again, brought in many sub clauses to explain what Jesus apparently hadn't or couldn't or wouldn't explain, or whatever.

Very few Christians that I know of, follow after Jesus

I will agree that very few Christians appear to be following the teachings of Jesus. I'll also agree that Paul's opinions don't appear to me to have any clout at all.

So we're already on the "same page" on those two points.

However, we are clearly on different pages when it comes to Jesus supposedly being the demigod Son of Yahweh.

Jesus was the softer evolving version of Yahweh, presented at a time when there was some hope of him catching on with the human imagination...and indeed, it appears to have done so...

You're not likely to believe this, but I can fully understand what you are saying here within the context of your idea that there exists a FSC (First Source Consciousness) and that this FSC is somehow described as "Yahweh" in the Hebrew Old Testament and that Jesus was supposedly an incarnation of this FSC's imagination.

Truly I can understand that philosophical MODEL.

But I see absolutely no reason to buy into it as having any credibility.

So that's my position on that.

Yahweh loves them through the effigy of Jesus. Before Jesus, Yahweh had no form...and it is just as well by all accounts...otherwise if Moses had looked at him, the tribes would not have got their instructions.

You have a great imagination. I can follow your "philosophy" here. I just don't see it as being compelling at all.

It is my position that you are attempting to connect an 'imagined' FSC with Hebrew mythology.

My question to you is why? Hebrew mythology is filled with extreme self-contradictions.

I'm willing to entertain a potential FSC. I've already told you that. And I have also made it clear that if an FSC exists the Buddhist are far more likely to have a correct description of the FSC than the ancient Hebrews did.

So that's my position on that.

I see Buddhism as being far superior to Hebrew mythology in terms of describing a potential FSC.

So perhaps you can understand my position on that?

Take Jesus out of Christianity and most Christians would tell Yahweh to go jump in his lake of fire.

That sounds like you just said it was Yahweh's lake of fire. Isn't it Jesus' lake of fire?

What would be the difference?

Christianity is monotheistic. Christians view Jesus as a direct incarnation of Yahweh in some inseparable sense. This is they whole idea of their "Trinity".

You also suggest that Jesus is nothing more than an imagined incarnation of your FSC which you seem to be identifying as Yahweh.

So I don't see where there would be any difference between Yahweh's lack of fire and Jesus' lake of fire.

In both paradigms (both your FSC model and in Christian Theology) Jesus and Yahweh are basically one in the same.

~~~~~~

Are you happy now?

Are we now on the "Same Page"?

I understand your FSC philosophy. I simply disagree with associating it with Hebrew mythology, Yahweh and Jesus.

If I were going to entertain a philosophy of FSC I would choose Buddhism as the best explanation for that.

Isn't that what I had already clarified?

So as far as I can see we are both on the "same page" in terms of understanding a potential philosophy of an FSC (First Source Consciousness).

Our only differences appear to be as follows:

1. You are convinced an FSC exists, I'm not.
2. You are convinced the FSC is described by Hebrew mythology. I am not.
3. If I were going to entertain an FSC I would choose Buddhism as the best explanation. You would not.

Aren't the above three points a correct description of where you and I are at on the concept of a potential FSC?

What could we do at this point to make anything more clear?