The Achievements

[asbestosman]

My point is that there just isn't a religious body of knowledge that can be agreed upon.

A poit with which I agree but do not see as any more significant than the fact that my favorite color is blue. No! Invisible. Ahhhhh.

By the way, given that being good to each other and being fair and harmless is wisdom that even atheists and Buddhists understand, what is there left? Ordinances?

I would say that a knowldge of the afterlife is one thing. Indeed, I think what religion really teaches us isn't so much what to do, but what to become or rather how to become like God. I see God as mentor of sorts teaching us how we can become as happy as He is.

Why not just forsake your sins simpliciter?

For the same reason one sometimes tie a string on his finger: it serves as a reminder.

[Tarski]

A poit with which I agree but do not see as any more significant than the fact that my favorite color is blue. No! Invisible. Ahhhhh.

Really? I didn't think that religious truths were just matters of taste.

For the same reason one sometimes tie a string on his finger. It serves as a reminder.

Are you afraid you might forget to not steal or murder? Or is it the coffee thing.

Why can't I choose my own reminder (like the string?)

[asbestosman]

Really? I didn't think that religious truths were just matters of taste.

They aren't. My point was that your point (that science is more agreed upon than religion) seems to be rather insignificant just as is my favorite color at least in my blue--I mean invisible--loving opinion. Perhaps I should have simply stuck wih asking, "Thus what?" (I seem to recall a conference talk about "thus what" some years ago).

[Tarski]

OK look. I think science is very successful at feretting out truth that we can all tentatively agree on and understand the rationality of.

Religion, well, not so much in my opinion. If love and kindness is your idea of religion than I am not talking to you. Its the myriad opposing doctrine about god, angels, demon and the various opposing ordinances and rituals etc.

Relgions in the sense of which I am speaking tells us that there are angels and demons and worldwide floods and flying horses, levitating maharishis and Gardens of Eden and so on. These are statements about the world.

[Uncle Dale]

It seems like what you are into is spirituality more than religion. You like to gleen impressions, metaphors, and ideas from various traditions but its never quite the religion itself with you (it seems). That's good but then it isn't what i am barking at.

Partly right -- (about one part out of a hundred, that is).

I am a theist and a religionist (and some still call me a Latter Day Saint regardless of my critic's status).

But none of that is important -- it is something different I am speaking of here. If you ever find it, then

you will know it; and if you do not, then you'll just have to follow your current path to its endpoint.

Uncle Dale

[Tarski]

They aren't. My point was that your point (that science is more agreed upon than religion) seems to be rather insignificant just as is my favorite color at least in my blue--I mean invisible--loving opinion. Perhaps I should have simply stuck wih asking, "Thus what?"

Thus be ye therefore impressed with the scientific method and wary of revelatory claims. The stats are in.

[asbestosman]

Really? I didn't think that religious truths were just matters of taste.

Are you afraid you might forget to not steal or murder? Or is it the coffee thing.

In a moment of weakness I might find it easy to trade what I want most for what I want at the moment. Perhaps I may think that verbal abuse is too amusing to foregoe instead of remembering that I should be standing as a witness at all times. Perhaps my own rudeness or snottiness would be the cause of much suffering in the bigger scheme of things when I do not keep the eternal perspective in mind.

Why can't I choose my own reminder (like the string?)

I don't konw, but perhaps to help us avoid making a mockery of things. Even so that still wouldn't answer why we need the priesthood and authorization for doing them. I obviously have not worked out details here. Perhaps the authorization is in part to ensure that we have a proper understanding of those covenants.

[Tarski]

Partly right -- (about one part out of a hundred, that is).

I am a theist and a religionist (and some still call me a Latter Day Saint regardless of my critic's status).

But none of that is important -- it is something different I am speaking of here. If you ever find it, then

you will know it; and if you do not, then you'll just have to follow your current path to its endpoint.

Uncle Dale

Is this new? I thought that recently you were more of a universalist or mystic or something?

You now identify as LDS?

[Tarski]

I obviously have not worked out details here. Perhaps the authorization is in part to ensure that we have a proper understanding of those covenants.

I think such rules are more about keeping people in the religion and not feeling free to choose another.

Religions that don't have rules and tricks to maintain product loyalty etc just don't survive.

[asbestosman]

Thus be ye therefore impressed with the scientific method and wary of revelatory claims. The stats are in.

I'm impressed with the scientific method and the results it has produced towards its goal. As to revelatory claims, I will be wary too. Even Bible says to be wary of them.

Where I disagree is in that very subject of religion. I think there is one of them which actually is true with fairly good supporting evidence for it. I grant that the evidence doesn't approach the level of evidence for most of physics, but it still seems quite good just as is he evidence that my parents love me.

[Uncle Dale]

Is this new? I thought that recently you were more of a universalist or mystic or something?

You now identify as LDS?

It's my ethnic group -- (a wise child knows his own father).

Not a universalist, but rather a unitarian, with a small "u." A theological point of view not

much tolerated by Latter Day Saints -- but "that too may pass." I am ever hopeful.

Mysticism is only a tool -- like a hammer or a wrench.

Nobody in the world need be a mystic.

Uncle "though some very good people seem to have taken that particular way in life" Dale

[asbestosman]

Religions that don't have rules and tricks to maintain product loyalty etc just don't survive.

Protestantism seems to have a very different idea about priesthood authority and seems to survive just fine.

[Tarski]

I'm impressed with the scientific method and the results it has produced towards its goal. As to revelatory claims, I will be wary too. Even Bible says to be wary of them.

Where I disagree is in that very subject of religion. I think there is one of them which actually is true with fairly good supporting evidence for it. I grant that the evidence doesn't approach the level of evidence for most of physics, but it still seems quite good just as is he evidence that my parents love me.

Could you outline that evidence as you see it?

Protestantism seems to have a very different idea about priesthood authority and seems to survive just fine.

They have different trick an appeal to a different tpye. They have a different niche.

[asbestosman]

Could you outline that evidence as you see it?

The spiritual witness is foremost, but supporting evidence includes the Book of Mormon along with the 8+3 witnesses. I also think there are some philosophical advantages LDS theology hold over other Christian traditions (and perhaps over atheism too) about the origin of evil, the universe, of us, and even of other animals as well as our destinies.

[Tarski]

The spiritual witness is foremost, but supporting evidence includes the Book of Mormon along with the 8+3 witnesses. I also think there are some philosophical advantages LDS theology hold over other Christian traditions (and perhaps over atheism too) about the origin of evil, the universe, of us, and even of other animals as well as our destinies.

OK a little more detail would be nice. Does that really stack up against the evidences that the critics have brought to the table? BoA, Biblic higher crit, evolution/mammal gods etc.

You must also be aware of the thorny issues surrounding the very notion of private inner evidence (like a spiritual witness). How do you deal with those?

[LifeOnaPlate]

OK a little more detail would be nice. Does that really stack up against the evidences that the critics have brought to the table? BoA, Biblic higher crit, evolution/mammal gods etc.

You must also be aware of the thorny issues surrounding the very notion of private inner evidence (like a spiritual witness). How do you deal with those?

Wow, Traski, this thread has quickly turned from "Acheivments" to "People who believe in religion are gullible stooges." Big shocker.

By the way, I thought your date of choice was funny. Your science book in the 1940s was missing some pretty key scientific discoveries, little things, like the friggin double helix for example. FALSE PROPHETS!!!

Kudos on being smarter than all of us dupes.

[asbestosman]

OK a little more detail would be nice.

Perhaps some other time although I suppose that in short I will say that I would not believe without a spiritual witness. I glanced at the "Based Solely on Evidence" thread and think that would be a better place for it. While I have not read much of it, I think the answers there should be sufficient especially those which include the necessity of a spiritual witness.

Does that really stack up against the evidences that the critics have brought to the table? BoA, Biblic higher crit, evolution/mammal gods etc.

Not without a spiritual witness.

You must also be aware of the thorny issues surrounding the very notion of private inner evidence (like a spiritual witness). How do you deal with those?

Zero Knowledge Proofs. I had a big discussion on Shades' board with The Dude on that. Granted I have to change a few details such that I cannot prove to you that I know something, but rather than I could know it just as Bob can be certain that Alice knows the password without knowing what that password is.

Honestly though I think that faith runs into some other logical difficulties when one defends its existance (or necessity) on the basis of agency.

[Tarski]

By the way, I thought your date of choice was funny. Your science book in the 1940s was missing some pretty key scientific discoveries, little things, like the friggin double helix for example. FALSE PROPHETS!!!

LOL. That statement is messed up on so many levels.

1. It was a physics book not a biology book.

2. Do you think that I claimed that the book contained all discoveries and all truth past and present?

I claimed that what was in there (99%) was still valid today.

3. Does science have to be able to predict the details of future discoveries befor the discoveries are even made? Did the "revelation" of the temple ceremony render the contents of the Book of Mormon funny (to use your words) because it contained nothing about the temple ceremony? (of course I think that's all fiction but I am using your beliefs to make the logical point)

[LifeOnaPlate]

LOL. That statement is messed up on so many levels.

1. It was a physics book not a biology book.

2. Do you think that I claimed that the book contained all discoveries and all truth past and present?

I claimed that what was in there (99%) was still valid today.

3. Does science have to be able to predict the details of future discoveries befor the discoveries are even made? Did the "revelation" of the temple ceremony render the contents of the Book of Mormon funny (to use your words) because it contained nothing about the temple ceremony? (of course I think that's all fiction but I am using your beliefs to make the logical point)

Now you're catching on, Tarsk.

[Maidservant]

Buddhism and Islam are false ("false") religions? (I disagree. I believe they were given by Father in heaven.)

Ordinances are useless as ritual. The only way "ritual" applies to the ordinances administered by Jesus Christ (and in his church) is semantically.

Ordinances are not performed as a way to have our Father approve of us on any level. That is not the DIRECTION that ordinances go in (meaning, something that man supposedly does to please God). Rather ordinances are actually/literally (not metaphorically) vessels of power (or with power). Ordinances carry God's power. They go in the DIRECTION of God to man. The Father and the Son provide the ordinances for us so we can access a progression of power and condition of soul. Ordinances are keys to doorways (and what "rooms" the doorways lead to). It has nothing whatsoever to do with approval or of winning a so-called after life reward.

Also "private inner evidence". That is exactly what witnesses are not. Witnesses have an external source. That is what makes them witnesses. The human body is a complex signal receiving technology. The human body is capable of receiving all types of energetic (and from realms other than the energetic category) signals; and is also capable of making at least basic interpretations of those signals including some grasp of the signal's source. This applies to the rays of the sun ("Gee, I feel warm inside! What's that? Look at that big furnace out in space billions of miles away, you say? I don't THINK so!"). This also applies to the rays of the spirit. This is NOT an analogy. The spirit is a signal on the SAME ORDER as the rays of the sun are. "Why can't I feel it, then?" Answer from me: I don't know. I do know that the 3 witnesses I have had were concrete experiences. I don't walk around receiving that same signal. I trust that I did at one point in the past. I do experience a daily preservation from the spirit, but that takes me farther in this discussion than perhaps I should go.

Also, I cannot for the life of me separate my knowledge or so-called knowledge into "science" or "religion". I like the phrase "statements about the world". I love knowing all about the world. I had many revelations and spiritual experiences in Statistics class and many salvational principles were unlocked for me. I find much about the nature of the universe in the scriptures. There is no boundary. It is my Father's world and I can explore as I like and come to conclusions based on my exploration (or the explorations of others: yay Dawkins!) without fear of "getting in trouble". On the other hand, if I just want to ask Him and maybe have a conversation with Him about what He might show me about the world, I can trust that communication just as much as I would any type of exploration I did on my own (i.e. scientific method; or other types of observations).

BTW, 1942 physics book . . . sigh . . . sounds utterly lovely . . .

[valkator]

Buddhism and Islam are false ("false") religions? (I disagree. I believe they were given by Father in heaven.)

Would you say that these other religious 'paths' were given to address different questions of existence in the past, as they related to the context the revelations were given within - and each exists in various stages of distortion today?

In Buddhism, for instance, the emphasis is on the realization of one's 'Self' or 'Not Self', as the case may be -- in terms of the true reality of what one is at an eternal 'level'. In other words, 'intelligence' or 'intelligences' as called in LDS terms. Buddhism, though, does not recognize the manifestions of Heavenly Father, Man, Jesus, even Buddha(!) and so on as anything other than illusory observers trapped within the illusion of matter - and sees no real link between the observer and the observed or between manifestations bringing other manifestations into being as a reality of 'intelligence' or 'Self'.

Because of Buddhisms' focus, they cannot recognize that matter is an eternal manifestation. Why is it eternal and not simply an illusion of transience? Because of the eternal nature of the one (intelligence) who observes (simultaneously creating 'matter' as a reflection of themselves in any given observational 'state') and is capable of changing their 'point of view' (eternal progression), thus causing matter to 'change' and appear differently as well. Matter that makes up the human body does not 'disappear' when we move on to a different bodily form after 'death' - and the more we try to reduce matter 'downward', we simply end up with matter in other forms -- energy, light, and so forth. They dismiss the link altogether because they seem to only be concerned with going 'back' to a supposed 'awakened' state prior to manifestation, itself - and 'everything else' just gets in the way of this goal. This is a clear distortion of what may have been the original revelation of seeing one's eternal as 'intelligence'. Any thoughts or additions -or corrections?

Now, in Islam, 'Allah' is often depicted as this very same thing, the unbegotten 'intelligence' - so to speak. The major issue with Islam, however, is that it locates this fundamental nature of 'Being' or 'Deity' as something totally and completely removed from man -- external to man's being itself. Man isn't this 'intelligence' and cannot ever be this intelligence'. This is, it would seem, a distortion of the Truth, as well.

As for ordinances going from 'God to man' - wouldn't this also include going from man to MAN, himself? In other words, might there not be more than just the outside 'parental' provision for building soul power, but something that is also internally given from Self to self - like a signal enlivening its own manifestation, as well? Might witnesses, in this sense, be there to not only observe and confirm, but also assist one in maintaining point of reference stability as the 'changes in perception' occur through the ordinances? These types of 'awakening rituals', with the accompanying 'power to the soul' can be difficult to manage for many humans who get enmeshed in 'the world' and are stagnating in their 'soul development'.

[solomarineris]

And yet, for all your condenscening "rightness", your science still has no power to change people's lives. It cannot convince a drunk to stop drinking and regain his life. It cannot convince the adulterer to come to his wife. It cannot convince the abuser to turn his life around. It cannot cause people to strive to be better, to treat each other with kindness and respect.

In the end, all your facts are simply trivia, with no real power at all.

C.I.

His facts are not trivial, contrary to your facts his facts are tested, tested and tested.

What his belief in science has anything to do with a drunk or adulterer not saving themselves?

Are you claiming your way can save these people? If so show me how?

Send me a private email and tell me how it is done? obviously I've been soo blind in my half century of existence I failed to see.

I think science is an awesome power which gives information about anything we want to know and strive for.

It is not based on fantasy.

Your computers, phones, spaceships did not appear by wishful thinking.

How can you call his facts trivial with no power when they are tested and proven beyond doubt?

[Tarski]

Now you're catching on, Tarsk.

I'm catching on that I was right all long? Umm O K

[Tarski]

Buddhism and Islam are false ("false") religions? (I disagree. I believe they were given by Father in heaven.)

Ordinances are useless as ritual. The only way "ritual" applies to the ordinances administered by Jesus Christ (and in his church) is semantically.

Ordinances are not performed as a way to have our Father approve of us on any level. That is not the DIRECTION that ordinances go in (meaning, something that man supposedly does to please God). Rather ordinances are actually/literally (not metaphorically) vessels of power (or with power). Ordinances carry God's power. They go in the DIRECTION of God to man. The Father and the Son provide the ordinances for us so we can access a progression of power and condition of soul. Ordinances are keys to doorways (and what "rooms" the doorways lead to). It has nothing whatsoever to do with approval or of winning a so-called after life reward.

Also "private inner evidence". That is exactly what witnesses are not. Witnesses have an external source.

I could claim and believe that my dreams or LSD visions have an external source too. Even if it was external, how would you know. How would it seem different to you if the source was internal?

In science, if one is doing thing properly that kind of problem doesn't come up.

The very fact that I and most scientists would agree would see it as likely that the source is internal hints that there is something missing that makes is so that this type of thing can't count as evidence.

[Tarski]

duplicate