The Uselessness Of Personal Revelation

[elguanteloko]

Since you like to claim that you deal in facts, please once again be reminded of some:

I originally wrote the following:

To which you responded with this:

Look, if you don't get the sarcasm, I'm sorry for you. Let's move on.

[elguanteloko]

That's obvious, for scientific truth, but that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about the best explanation which gives your life meaning.

Is that getting somewhere finally?

Yes, that gets us very far, actually. All this time I thought you meant by "God" and "God's influence" as something that can literally work miracles as traditionally understood. Now I get that you mean no more than mere feel-good believes that accommodate to what you want and feel like. They aren't truths about the world (no physical God is claimed, no physical influence of God's power as to call events "miracles" in the normal sense of the term, etc); they are just stuff you accept about your feelings and that's it.

Am I correct?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Look, if you don't get the sarcasm, I'm sorry for you. Let's move on.

If by sarcasm you mean 'dismissive double standard,' then I'm with you. Let's certainly move on...or over, or down, or wherever this exchange is currently heading.

[elguanteloko]

If by sarcasm you mean 'dismissive double standard,' then I'm with you. Let's certainly move on...or over, or down, or wherever this exchange is currently heading.

[Brian 2.0]

The key here is to find out what "truth" means in a religious context.

What is "true" is what gives you satisfaction in life, and works for you to produce a world view that allows you to make sense of your place in the universe.

That is actually what Alma 32 is about- it is not about scientific truth - about discovering "facts" about the world. It is about discovering yourself and what gives your life meaning.

Well... I see what you are saying, but I would think that applies more to "good" than "true". I don't doubt the "goodness" of the church and all the benefits is can provide for the people in it. I think it's great. If I am looking for what works for me then I think Alma 32 does a fine job. But the church asks more than that.

If it's about whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet who restored God's true church and restored God's exclusive priesthood authority on the earth, then that goes beyond simple "working for me."

Perhaps the process outlined in Alma 32 just accounts for what's good and works for you, but I always that it was a process for finding out what's true and in a lot of case (restoration of the gospel) what is true for everyone, period.

[mfbukowski]

However, I see no reason why a physical, corporeal God and the supposed influence he has on the world and in many individuals' lives by working miracles, etc, shouldn't be tested through science.

I am so tired of hearing this- the idea is a doctrinal contradiction.

Let me explain the doctrine that I thought you would have understood.

There VOLUMES written about how "faith precedes the miracle". The presumption is that it is through faith that the worlds were created.

One cannot simultaneously have faith that a miracle will occur while one is testing it- or while one knows that someone else is testing it. There is no possible methodology which would be consistent with doctrine

Can you understand that??

You cannot test this doctrine. Even to try is to contradict the doctrine. It is like putting on blinders to see things more clearly.

[mfbukowski]

elguanteloko:

"Again, I accept science is NOT the only method of inquiry but if you say God's power influences the physical world then that isn't really outside of science."

Since the Saints believe that God uses his power overwhelmingly through natural processes. How would anyone tell the difference?

Yep

[mfbukowski]

BIngo to you. There's the rub.

We're not talking about some minor side issue like BOM archeology or global flood. We're talking about the very root of the tree of a testimony.

No, you're confusing scientific evidence with subjective evidence.

The most important decisions in life are not based on scientific evidence, and spiritual beliefs are among those important decisions like whom to marry, what school to go to, what makes you happy etc.

Decisions about happiness and what "works" to give your life meaning, and make your life worth getting out of bed for, are not determined by scientific evidence.

[elguanteloko]

mf, did I interpret you correctly or not?

[elguanteloko]

Decisions about happiness and what "works" to give your life meaning, and make your life worth getting out of bed for, are not determined by scientific evidence.

That wasn't what we were talking about mf. You know very well we were speaking of a physical God that concretely intervenes in the physical world in some way.

Did I interpret you correctly last time or not?

[Brian 2.0]

MF,

The concept of Joseph Smith restoring God's priesthood on earth is not a subjective truth.

Who to marry, what school to join, etc are not good parallels. Those are subjective and can vary from person to person and still be "right" decisions.

The truth claims of the church are not subjective. At least how they've been presented to me.

[mfbukowski]

Does "yellowness" imply God and do canaries imply "it is from Neptune's power"?

Huh? Where did you get this?

LOL Well, sure, we wouldn't name it like that.... and?

We talk about issues using definitions- and language is all we have to communicate. It appears you do not understand that.

Imagine a time when cancer was thought to be the expression of the mystical powers of the planet Neptune. I'm going to play mf for a moment: "there can't be another explanation for this cancer other than Neptune's power because if it wasn't due to Neptune's power then it wouldn't be what we call cancer."

Nowhere close. You need to actually read the post and engage the brain before engaging the mouth.

"There is no way to determine cancer's source, all we know is that the experience itself "says" within it, it is "from Neptune." "

As always, you are confusing objective and subjective. Cancer's cause is determinable by science. Your meaning in life, and whether or not God is speaking to you is not.

There you have it, folks. Let's throw science out the window. No statistical analyses, no empirical research since our experiences "tell us" they are from Neptune because if they weren't then they wouldn't be what we call "Neptunean experiences." Let confirmation bias reign!

I of course said nothing even remotely like this. I am tired of your misquotes in spirit and in fact. You have no understanding of anything I say. Ridicule might be fun, but when you lie about what someone has said, it doesn't earn you much credibility.

Some here would like to see your statistical analysis of all this- but I will let them speak for themselves should they choose to.

[mfbukowski]

Again, I'm not talking about the qualitative experience of "feeling God's influence" but what caused what we call "the feeling of God's influence".

We have been over this a dozen times. You are presuming there is a "cause" for a subjective experience and such a cause cannot be defined- and brain states don't do it because they don't explain the phenomenology.

And quit the ridicule.

Your credibility is on the line, not only on the topic but on a personal level.

[mfbukowski]

Oh, OK. So religious "truth" isn't truth at all but just a feel-good belief that gives you satisfaction. Why have we been arguing all this time?

Of course it is "truth"!

It is not scientific truth. Had you ever read James or Dewey, as I asked you to, you would understand that

It is what allows you to know your place in the universe and is not scientifically verifiable.

I have been saying this from my first post.

[elguanteloko]

deleted

[Mudcat]

deleted thanks

[Hamba Tuhan]

If it's about whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet who restored God's true church and restored God's exclusive priesthood authority on the earth, then that goes beyond simple "working for me."

Perhaps the process outlined in Alma 32 just accounts for what's good and works for you, but I always that it was a process for finding out what's true and in a lot of case (restoration of the gospel) what is true for everyone, period.

Brian, if, using your example, the priesthood restored by Joseph Smith genuinely works--and it does--then it really comes from God. The only way you can know for yourself if it works, though, is if it works for you. And I can know for myself if it works only if it works for me. And then we can get together for home teaching or testimony meeting or elders quorum meeting and share our findings, which is exactly what I do in my academic life as well.

[Kenngo1969]

And I've come to believe there are no coincidences.

There you have it. There's nothing you and I can talk about, then. Since there aren't coincidences then everything must have a "purpose" or intended direction. Humans are famous for getting the "purpose" assumption wrong and if you assume such a ludicrous claim then I can't help you.

But … please, oh, please, Mr. Crazy Glove! You simply cannot abandon us to our own ignorance! How could you even think of doing such a thing! That’s so … so mean, so cold, so cruel, so callous, so … heartless! Help us! Oh, please, for the love of Go—Oops! Sorry! I mean, for the love of all that is good in the world—help us!!!

Nope.

No dripping condescension there!

And in case all of the above has somehow failed to make this point beyond all reason, I’m having a really hard time believing you started this thread—that’s right; you started it (in case you’ve forgotten—to help anyone. You started this thread for your own purposes: to mock; to jeer; to criticize; to deride … those I can buy as reasons for starting this thread, but helping Deborah or anyone else has nothing to do with it.

It really is just a question. I am just inquiring' date=' not judging. I just want to know the thought process and judgments you use. Maybe rationality is not as important as building and preserving faith for you.[/quote']

Sigh!

Well, I guess the jig is up. You got us. As people of faith, we live in mortal fear … utter, abject terror … of our worldview collapsing like a house of cards!

Nope, no condescension there, either!

[elguanteloko]

I am not surprised you disclosed a PM. Par for the course.

It upsets me, because you seek some vindication by doing so with some intent to hurt others.

You have displayed your inability to keep trust.

You should delete that post and keep your face.

I will delete mine in reciprocity.

Sorry, I won't do it. I have little respect for people like him. I don't look for "vindication". Others have written to me and I would never display their stuff but I won't respect mf.

[elguanteloko]

blah, you are right. I did wrong in publishing that. I'll take it off.

[Nathair/|\]

It sounds to me like elguanteloko has trapped himself in a false binary. Can he find the third factor that will resolve it and free him?

Edited to add link.

[elguanteloko]

It sounds to me like elguanteloko has trapped himself in a false binary. Can he find the third factor that will resolve it and free him?

?

[mfbukowski]

Yes, that gets us very far, actually. All this time I thought you meant by "God" and "God's influence" as something that can literally work miracles as traditionally understood. Now I get that you mean no more than mere feel-good believes that accommodate to what you want and feel like. They aren't truths about the world (no physical God is claimed, no physical influence of God's power as to call events "miracles" in the normal sense of the term, etc); they are just stuff you accept about your feelings and that's it.

Am I correct?

"Nothing more?" that is your characterization, not mine. An understanding of our place in the universe is about the most important understanding we can attain in life.

God's power can work miracles, but they cannot be proven scientifically or else they would not be called "miracles". Miracles are "unexplained phenomena" in a scientific sense.

They are the disappearance of cancer when it should be there- when it was there last week, for example, and is now gone. I have seen many of these. Many have been attested to on this thread.

God has a body, but that cannot be proven scientifically. It is a belief accepted on faith. I thought you understood that.

And "just stuff you accept about your feelings" is how you have made every important decision in your life, including becoming an atheist. To do so you have to deny "just stuff you accept about your feelings".

You cannot fall in love or be happy without "accepting stuff about your feelings".

You cannot make decisions to post here or to go have a sandwich or never come back again without "accepting stuff about your feelings"

You cannot decide to take one graduate program or another without "accepting stuff about your feelings", or make any subjective choices at all without "accepting stuff about your feelings"

"Accepting stuff about your feelings" is what keeps you, literally, out of the nut house. Those who cannot "accept stuff about their feelings" have unhappy lives, and keep therapists in business.

[Mudcat]

blah, you are right. I did wrong in publishing that. I'll take it off.

I knew you were a good a egg.

Thanks for the affirmation.

[elguanteloko]

How long do mods take to close a thread? I want it closed.

I'm mad I took someone seriously who didn't deserved it.