Holy Ghost: Says Different Things To Different People?

[mfbukowski]

You have to be able to see what exists that someone else doesn't know about and then apply that back to yourself.

For example, suppose at some point later in time you have a son and you name him John, but as of now he hasn't been born. Here you are living your life, while other people live their life, in reality, and John doesn't know anything about that because all of that is outside of his experience. Does that fact that he doesn't know about it mean that reality doesn't exist? No. And what if you never have a son which you will name John, so that John will never exist. Will that change or alter or make any difference at all in reality? No. Whether or not John is ever born and thus is able to experience reality, reality still exists. Now suppose that you had never been born. Would that change or alter reality as it would have been then? No. It would still be reality whether or not you (or I) ever experienced it.

Nothing, because in reality God (our Father) and some other people have experienced everything there is to experience.

That doesn't mean reality wouldn't exist if nobody like us or of our kind of being had ever lived to experience it, though. Reality would have then just been something without us, so that instead of us being the highest form of life in all of existence some other kind of being would be and would have been God.

You are not getting this

John knows so it is part of human experience. All that is real has been experienced by someone sometime. But perhaps that is not "correct"

It might as well be for all practical purposes. It can't matter to us unless someone has experienced it.

[mfbukowski]

Nothing, because in reality God (our Father) and some other people have experienced everything there is to experience.

News flash

Mormons believe God is human

[Ahab]

You are not getting this.

If you got what I'm getting you would see that I got it. As it is, you don't see what I got.

John knows so it is part of human experience.

John hasn't been born yet, and he may never be born, so John doesn't know squat.

All that is real has been experienced by someone sometime. But perhaps that is not "correct"

That part is correct, but even if nobody who we would refer to as "someone" never existed, reality would still exist.

It might as well be for all practical purposes. It can't matter to us unless someone has experienced it.

Can't matter to who, or what? Suppose our kind of being didn't exist, and never existed, and never would exist. There would still be other forms of life in the universe doing their thing and existence would still matter to them. We just wouldn't be around to appreciate them, or to help them. But reality would still go on without us. It just so happens that we are a part of that reality because that is the way reality is as it is now.

[Ahab]

News flash

Mormons believe God is human

Duh, although that isn't exactly the way I would put it. He is the same kind of being we are, though, so in that sense you are correct.

Now try to tell me something I don't and never will know. Give it your very best shot.

[mfbukowski]

Now try to tell me something I don't and never will know. Give it your very best shot.

All I have said. That wasn't hard at all.

All we have is human experience, including, if you like, God's experience.

[mfbukowski]

Can't matter to who, or what? Suppose our kind of being didn't exist, and never existed, and never would exist. There would still be other forms of life in the universe doing their thing and existence would still matter to them. We just wouldn't be around to appreciate them, or to help them. But reality would still go on without us. It just so happens that we are a part of that reality because that is the way reality is as it is now.

The whole point is what you have said in your human language, is unknowable. It has no practical significance to we now non-existent humans. In other words- who cares?

Oh by the way you have just killed off God as well since he is Human.

There is nothing in the category of "existing things" if the humanly defined category never existed.

But you will not understand that either I am afraid and will come back with something totally ignoring that.

Edited April 19, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

The whole point is what you have said in your human language, is unknowable. It has no practical significance to we now non-existent humans. In other words- who cares?

Oh by the way you have just killed off God as well since he is Human.

That was the scenario I was positing, yes, but only to make a point. It's not how reality is now, but it could have been, and had it been, the other types of life in existence withing that reality would still care about whatever they would care about. I'd like to think they'd miss us, but then they'd have to know about us first to be able to miss us, otherwise they wouldn't even know we existed as they still went on caring about whatever they would care about.

There is nothing in the category of "existing things" if the humanly defined category never existed.

The humanly defined category still refers to something that would still exist even if we weren't here to give it a name.

But you will not understand that either I am afraid and will come back with something totally ignoring that.

I don't know why you keep thinking I don't understand what you mean. I do understand, and I just don't agree with you.

Deal with that in your idea of reality.

[mfbukowski]

That was the scenario I was positing, yes, but only to make a point. It's not how reality is now, but it could have been, and had it been, the other types of life in existence withing that reality would still care about whatever they would care about. I'd like to think they'd miss us, but then they'd have to know about us first to be able to miss us, otherwise they wouldn't even know we existed as they still went on caring about whatever they would care about.

The humanly defined category still refers to something that would still exist even if we weren't here to give it a name.

I don't know why you keep thinking I don't understand what you mean. I do understand, and I just don't agree with you.

Deal with that in your idea of reality.

Keep digging. And where would the "category" be? Floating around somewhere? (And don't bring God back in because you have killed him off already)

I am only keeping this going for those who might still cling to your point of view- even though I know you will keep coming back if what you say makes sense or not.

Edited April 19, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

Keep digging. And where would the "category" be? (And don't bring God back in because you have killed him off already)

Are you operating under the premise that the kind of being God is must exist before any other kind of being can exist in reality? I'm not. While God (our Father) and others of our kind of being are responsible for transporting various kinds of life to various places in this universe, in our reality now, other kinds of life would still exist somewhere even if they had to transport themselves to wherever they would end up going, without us. In other words, there would still be plants and animals of various kinds, even if we (our kind of being) did not exist. Where, exactly? I don't know, exactly, but somewhere in the universe. Life, itself, of all kinds and orders of intelligence, is eternal.

[Alvino]

You mean your, and others, interpretations of what is "correct" according to their experience, Still interpretations. Realize you are fighting all of Continental philosophy of the 20th century here AND the Pragmatic half of the analytical portion of Anglo- American philosophy here, not just me. I wish I dreamed this up, but I certainly didn't. It is not an idea that one dismisses with a one-liner on a message board

Most professional philosophers reject Pragmatism; don't make me seem like a fringe element. We can use controlled experiments (i.e. scientific tests and other kinds of tests) to form beliefs about the things we experience such as cars, jet engines, stars, refrigeration, etc. We can also use controlled experiments in psychology. These experiments are experienced - that is, we experience the results if things go one way or the other - and this helps to form nuanced beliefs.

No problem at this point, I take it.

All we have as data to understand the world is the sum total of human experience.

I'll go with that but this is uninteresting. What we are discussing is what kinds of beliefs we are warranted to form based on these experiences. You take it (or so it seems to me), for example, that we are not warranted to hold metaphysical claims about, say, a mind-independent world. This means you believe we can dispense of such an idea of the world because of epistemological reasons.

Science however ignores personal subjective experience.

Ahem. I suppose physicians in your area just run you through tests without asking you a thing. Maybe you think Psychologists do the same.

Yet in our personal lives, ALL we have as human people IS personal subjective experience. Every single "fact" YOU have learned comes out of subjective experiences YOU personally have had. In fourth grade someone taught the person Alvino, say, how to do long division. That was a a process of the society in which you lived giving you personal subjective experiences about what works for that society to enable you to do a certain calculation which would be useful in life. You - personally and subjectively- learned about geography as your society understood it and took it all to be "facts" about things you had not personally experienced. But someone else had, and you took it on faith that they were not mistaken or lying.

So, what do you think follows from this? Because this certainly doesn't mean we are justified in believing any old thing we hear.

Science taught you implicitly that what you personally experienced was not important, that only things which other people had seen also were important. Ignore dreams and visions- those things cannot be verified by someone else, so they are not "real".

I have no such view of science.

But still every day of your life is lived in the subjective mode. It is YOU who gets hungry- subjectively- YOU who decides what is "important" for you to do today, who to see, what to talk about etc. You live your life in the subjective, but yet because it is a world of "feeling" and because you have been taught to ignore that world you accept that it is not "real". Feelings are irrelevant- what matters it what other people tell you is "real".

How did we go from perceiving to feelings? That I feel horrified by reading Oedipus the kingdoesn't mean I am warranted to believe such even took place.

But what ARE feelings? They are subjective experiences of how you relate to the world. For each of us, feelings are completely important- but our naturalistic society deprecates their importance.

Feelings are experiences, yes.

I believe that experiences of "God" are just as real as any subjective experiences we have as humans - regardless of the fact that science, to me, ignorantly, deprecates their importance. God is as real to me as anyone else around me- I interact with him- I ask questions and he answers- but this is all through subjective feelings -EXACTLY LIKE ALL THE OTHER SUBJECTIVE FEELINGS I use to make decisions of importance every day of my life. He is as real as anything.

You have heard the distinction between the experience and the cause of experiences. If I touch your brain at certain places you may feel as if you are getting out of your body. Does that mean you are getting out of your body? Probably not.

And the truth I create for myself includes the affirmation that God exists and is as real as anything or anyone else, and no one can show how that is not "real".

Duly noted but you haven't explained why we should take your interpretation of your experiences as correct.

To me the correspondence theory is metaphysics

Well, it uses metaphysics.

because it postulates a world beyond language and experience to which our language "corresponds" but all you have is language to talk about it. Big inconsistency.

All we have to talk about anything is language because that is what "talking" means.

mf, to say that there is a world independent of experience (a mind-independent world) doesn't mean that such a world can't be accessed through experience. It only means that such a world is of a certain way whether we believe it to be so or not, or that such a world is what it is whether we are experiencing it or not. There exist a tree no one is experiencing. That is a mind-independent tree. That there exists such a mind-independent tree doesn't mean we can't experience such a tree or the tree is inaccessible to experience.

[Ahab]

Most professional philosophers reject Pragmatism; don't make me seem like a fringe element. We can use controlled experiments (i.e. scientific tests and other kinds of tests) to form beliefs about the things we experience such as cars, jet engines, stars, refrigeration, etc. We can also use controlled experiments in psychology. These experiments are experienced - that is, we experience the results if things go one way or the other - and this helps to form nuanced beliefs.

No problem at this point, I take it.

I'll go with that but this is uninteresting. What we are discussing is what kinds of beliefs we are warranted to form based on these experiences. You take it (or so it seems to me), for example, that we are not warranted to hold metaphysical claims about, say, a mind-independent world. This means you believe we can dispense of such an idea of the world because of epistemological reasons.

Ahem. I suppose physicians in your area just run you through tests without asking you a thing. Maybe you think Psychologists do the same.

So, what do you think follows from this? Because this certainly doesn't mean we are justified in believing any old thing we hear.

I have no such view of science.

How did we go from perceiving to feelings? That I feel horrified by reading Oedipus the kingdoesn't mean I am warranted to believe such even took place.

Feelings are experiences, yes.

You have heard the distinction between the experience and the cause of experiences. If I touch your brain at certain places you may feel as if you are getting out of your body. Does that mean you are getting out of your body? Probably not.

Duly noted but you haven't explained why we should take your interpretation of your experiences as correct.

Well, it uses metaphysics.

All we have to talk about anything is language because that is what "talking" means.

mf, to say that there is a world independent of experience (a mind-independent world) doesn't mean that such a world can't be accessed through experience. It only means that such a world is of a certain way whether we believe it to be so or not, or that such a world is what it is whether we are experiencing it or not. There exist a tree no one is experiencing. That is a mind-independent tree. That there exists such a mind-independent tree doesn't mean we can't experience such a tree or the tree is inaccessible to experience.

Write some more posts, please. I need to click on something to give you some more rep points.

[Brian 2.0]

Excellent post Alvino. I'm saved from having to brush up on my philosophy to formulate a response that I've been trying to come up with, so I'll just quote you.

don't make me seem like a fringe element.

Exactly, I feel like mfbukowski is making it out that any modern philosopher or great thinker worth their own weight has rejected anything that resembles correspondence theory and anyone who doesn't think like he does is thinking like an old relic who hasn't read a modern book.

So, what do you think follows from this? Because this certainly doesn't mean we are justified in believing any old thing we hear.

This is what I've been trying to get at for a while. What follows form this? If we subscribe to mf's view, then were does that leave us. How can we feel justified in believing or not believing anything.

Duly noted but you haven't explained why we should take your interpretation of your experiences as correct.

This is my main question as well. Which I have tried to restate multiple times, but it always starts the debate over from the beginning and we seem to go full circle again. I really am trying to wrap my head around what you're saying mf, I really am, and I need to re-read you last big post, so perhaps i will understand how you have answered that question, or if you even think it's possible to answer that question.

[mfbukowski]

mf, to say that there is a world independent of experience (a mind-independent world) doesn't mean that such a world can't be accessed through experience. It only means that such a world is of a certain way whether we believe it to be so or not, or that such a world is what it is whether we are experiencing it or not. There exist a tree no one is experiencing. That is a mind-independent tree. That there exists such a mind-independent tree doesn't mean we can't experience such a tree or the tree is inaccessible to experience.

Where exactly IS this tree, how tall is it, and what kind of tree is it? Is it on a hillside or plain? How far down do its roots extend? What do you know about it?

"Existence" is irrelevant in such a case- it has no meaning in a human context.

And again, for the second time, I am not discussing Pragmatism alone- but all of Continental philosophy as well including Analytic philosophy.

If you think I am making this stuff up- I am taking it largely from these guys at least on the analytical side:

Analytic philosophy of religion

Main article: Philosophy of religion

As with the study of ethics, early analytic philosophy tended to avoid the study of philosophy of religion, largely dismissing (as per the logical positivists view) the subject as part of metaphysics and therefore meaningless.^[34] The collapse of logical positivism renewed interest in philosophy of religion, prompting philosophers like William Alston, John Mackie, Alvin Plantinga, Robert Merrihew Adams, Richard Swinburne, and Antony Flew not only to introduce new problems, but to re-open classical topics such as the nature of miracles, theistic arguments, the problem of evil, (see existence of God) the rationality of belief in God, concepts of the nature of God, and many more.^[35]

Plantinga, Mackie and Flew debated the logical validity of the free will defense as a way to solve the problem of evil.^[36] Alston, grappling with the consequences of analytic philosophy of language, worked on the nature of religious language. Adams worked on the relationship of faith and morality.^[37] Analytic epistemology and metaphysics has formed the basis for a number of philosophically-sophisticated theistic arguments, like those of the reformed epistemologists like Plantinga.

Analytic philosophy of religion has also been preoccupied with Ludwig Wittgenstein, as well as his interpretation of Søren Kierkegaard's philosophy of religion.^[38] Using first-hand remarks (which was later published in Philosophical Investigations, Culture and Value, and other works), philosophers such as Peter Winch and Norman Malcolm developed what has come to be known as contemplative philosophy, a Wittgensteinian school of thought rooted in the "Swansea tradition," and which includes Wittgensteinians such as Rush Rhees, Peter Winch, and D. Z. Phillips, among others. The name "contemplative philosophy" was first coined by D. Z. Phillips in Philosophy's Cool Place, which rests on an interpretation of a passage from Wittgenstein's "Culture and Value."^[39] This interpretation was first labeled, "Wittgensteinian Fideism," by Kai Nielsen but those who consider themselves Wittgensteinians in the Swansea tradition have relentlessly and repeatedly rejected this construal as caricature of Wittgenstein's considered position; this is especially true of D. Z. Phillips.^[40] Responding to this interpretation, Kai Nielsen and D.Z. Phillips became two of the most prominent philosophers on Wittgenstein's philosophy of religion.^[41]

[mfbukowski]

Excellent post Alvino. I'm saved from having to brush up on my philosophy to formulate a response that I've been trying to come up with, so I'll just quote you.

I think you better brush up.

Exactly, I feel like mfbukowski is making it out that any modern philosopher or great thinker worth their own weight has rejected anything that resembles correspondence theory and anyone who doesn't think like he does is thinking like an old relic who hasn't read a modern book.

The correspondence theory of truth is often associated with metaphysical realism. Its traditional competitors, coherentist, pragmatist, and verificationist theories of truth, are often associated with idealism, anti-realism, or relativism. In recent years, the traditional competitors have been virtually replaced (at least from publication-space) by deflationary theories of truth and, to a lesser extent, by the identity theory: they now lead the attack against correspondence theories. Another approach to truth that has recently received considerable attention is truthmaker theory; it is sometimes viewed as a competitor to, sometimes as a more liberal version of, the correspondence theory.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/

9.2 No Independent Access to Reality

The objection that may well have been the most effective in causing discontent with the correspondence theory is based on an epistemological concern. In a nutshell, the objection is that a correspondence theory of truth must inevitably lead into skepticism about the external world because the required correspondence between our thoughts and reality is not ascertainable. Ever since Berkeley's attack on the representational theory of the mind, objections of this sort have enjoyed considerable popularity. It is typically pointed out that we cannot step outside our own minds to compare our thoughts with mind-independent reality. Yet—so the objection continues—on the correspondence theory of truth, this is precisely what we would have to do to gain knowledge. We would have to access reality as it is in itself, independently of our cognition of it, and determine whether our thoughts correspond to it. Since this is impossible, since all our access to the world is mediated by our cognition, the correspondence theory makes knowledge impossible (cf. Kant 1800, intro vii). Assuming that the resulting skepticism is unacceptable, the correspondence theory has to be rejected, and some other account of truth, an epistemic (anti-realist) account of some sort, has to be put in its place (Cf., e.g., Blanshard 1941.)

Underlining added.

I'll let you philosophical scholars carry on- I am wasting time here.

[Brian 2.0]

The correspondence theory of truth is often associated with metaphysical realism. Its traditional competitors, coherentist, pragmatist, and verificationist theories of truth, are often associated with idealism, anti-realism, or relativism. In recent years, the traditional competitors have been virtually replaced (at least from publication-space) by deflationary theories of truth and, to a lesser extent, by the identity theory: they now lead the attack against correspondence theories. Another approach to truth that has recently received considerable attention is truthmaker theory; it is sometimes viewed as a competitor to, sometimes as a more liberal version of, the correspondence theory.

What was your purpose of including this quote?

[Alvino]

Where exactly IS this tree, how tall is it, and what kind of tree is it? Is it on a hillside or plain? How far down do its roots extend? What do you know about it?

"Existence" is irrelevant in such a case- it has no meaning in a human context.

"Irrelevant" is one thing (irrelevant for what, anyways?), having no meaning is another. Surely it is meaningful to talk about a plethora of objects we don't perceive.

And again, for the second time, I am not discussing Pragmatism alone- but all of Continental philosophy as well including Analytic philosophy.

Before you said "the Pragmatic half of the analytical portion of Anglo- American philosophy"; now it's Analytic philosophy?

If you think I am making this stuff up- I am taking it largely from these guys at least on the analytical side:

No one said you were making it up. It is still a fact that most philosophers and most of philosophy in the West don't go for your position. I guess there's no hope of you addressing any other point made in my post, is there?

Edited April 22, 2013 by Alvino

[Storm Rider]

This seems to be a common refrain of those with little understanding of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the voice of all truth; it is beyond his ability to not tell the truth. What is possible is that we humans confuse his message or make assumptions about what he has said. If there is a weak link in the communication it exists only on the side of humanity.

[pmccombs1]

This seems to be a common refrain of those with little understanding of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the voice of all truth; it is beyond his ability to not tell the truth. What is possible is that we humans confuse his message or make assumptions about what he has said. If there is a weak link in the communication it exists only on the side of humanity.

And, how would we know if we were confusing the message, or making assumptions about what has been said? If humanity is the weak link, are we perhaps all mistaken?

Suppose that a person is lost in some metaphorical "mists of darkness." This person wants to know a safe path to God, if there is one.

Now, the pragmatic response is that you don't worry about some "external" justification for spiritual witness, because this is impossible. There is no external. You experiment and experience. You plant the seed and see what grows out of it. If it is useful or pleasing, then hey, why worry? That's tied in to the Alma 32 formula.

The curious thing, though, is that apparently all of these various choices can yield useful and pleasing results. So then we get others who are advocating the "personalized curriculum" view that says God helps all of His children according to their capacities. He gives them the "truths" they can accept and lets them get along as best they can. We each believe our own answers are the best, if not the only true ones.

That's all fine and good by me, right up until our personal witness and personal curriculum leaks beyond the boundaries of "personal" and begins to tell other people everywhere that their truths are apostate, that they need to repent, that they need to follow a particular formula, that they need to submit themselves to a certain hierarchy, and that mine is the only way to get back to God. Maybe this is all justified by the excuse that nobody is being coerced into accepting this gospel. In fact, they are being encouraged to apply the formula and see if it works! Sometimes it does work, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes it produces an opposite response of the Spirit telling the person to flee from such an errant gospel.

So, how do we know, in this world of asserted global and universal truths, if a "personal" message has been confused or an assumption improperly made? After all, I spent time in the mission field asking people to question their assumptions and reconsider their spiritual conclusions. It sometimes became the source of no small strife, particularly when some people discovered that it is indeed possible to get a witness of these things when others in their families possessed personal curricula apparently incompatible with the new teachings. Families (useful, practical things) were occasionally disrupted.

When the stakes are this high, and when we wield such a power over so many others, I suggest there ought to be something more reliable than "personal" conviction allegedly received by the Holy Ghost. Although, to the pragmatist's point, we can never be truly objective, nevertheless we have ways that are deemed reliable when declaring something to be "real" (or at least "expedient"), and another as "make-believe" (or perhaps "unjustified"). Somehow we still make a distinction between truth and fiction, waking and dreaming.

Some have suggested that we can know them "by their fruits." And what might these fruits be? Is it the prosperity gospel? The wealth of a Church, or the success of those in it? The number of spiritually themed billboards along the highway? The number of reported miracle healings? A head count of satisfied believers? The generosity of its alms, PR'd conspicuously before men? The most of X? The biggest of Y?

[Bit]

Wade,

Why do you take the time to type "Thanks -Wade Englund-" after each post?

Whom are you thanking, and why?

[Storm Rider]

And, how would we know if we were confusing the message, or making assumptions about what has been said? If humanity is the weak link, are we perhaps all mistaken?

Suppose that a person is lost in some metaphorical "mists of darkness." This person wants to know a safe path to God, if there is one.

Now, the pragmatic response is that you don't worry about some "external" justification for spiritual witness, because this is impossible. There is no external. You experiment and experience. You plant the seed and see what grows out of it. If it is useful or pleasing, then hey, why worry? That's tied in to the Alma 32 formula.

The curious thing, though, is that apparently all of these various choices can yield useful and pleasing results. So then we get others who are advocating the "personalized curriculum" view that says God helps all of His children according to their capacities. He gives them the "truths" they can accept and lets them get along as best they can. We each believe our own answers are the best, if not the only true ones.

That's all fine and good by me, right up until our personal witness and personal curriculum leaks beyond the boundaries of "personal" and begins to tell other people everywhere that their truths are apostate, that they need to repent, that they need to follow a particular formula, that they need to submit themselves to a certain hierarchy, and that mine is the only way to get back to God. Maybe this is all justified by the excuse that nobody is being coerced into accepting this gospel. In fact, they are being encouraged to apply the formula and see if it works! Sometimes it does work, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes it produces an opposite response of the Spirit telling the person to flee from such an errant gospel.

So, how do we know, in this world of asserted global and universal truths, if a "personal" message has been confused or an assumption improperly made? After all, I spent time in the mission field asking people to question their assumptions and reconsider their spiritual conclusions. It sometimes became the source of no small strife, particularly when some people discovered that it is indeed possible to get a witness of these things when others in their families possessed personal curricula apparently incompatible with the new teachings. Families (useful, practical things) were occasionally disrupted.

When the stakes are this high, and when we wield such a power over so many others, I suggest there ought to be something more reliable than "personal" conviction allegedly received by the Holy Ghost. Although, to the pragmatist's point, we can never be truly objective, nevertheless we have ways that are deemed reliable when declaring something to be "real" (or at least "expedient"), and another as "make-believe" (or perhaps "unjustified"). Somehow we still make a distinction between truth and fiction, waking and dreaming.

Some have suggested that we can know them "by their fruits." And what might these fruits be? Is it the prosperity gospel? The wealth of a Church, or the success of those in it? The number of spiritually themed billboards along the highway? The number of reported miracle healings? A head count of satisfied believers? The generosity of its alms, PR'd conspicuously before men? The most of X? The biggest of Y?

Truth is not relative; what is true for one will always be true for another. However, that does not in any sense dictate that God's plan for each individual is that today they all join a specific church. God's plan is that each individual maintain his free agency. In that maintenance their choice to follow him, to come to him is of paramount importance. I believe that all people are influenced by the Holy Spirit and that many faithful followers of Jesus Christ are found in other churches. I also believe that these individuals are fulfilling our Father in Heaven's immediate plan for their lives. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not only about a salvation in this world, but it is an eternal salvation that proceeds, is effected, beyond the grave. I think there are some LDS members that have a wonderful testimony of Jesus Christ, but may not have a testimony about the restored Church of Jesus Christ. I also believe that there are Catholics that are convinced that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ on earth. Both groups suffer from an incomplete understanding of what the Holy Ghost is saying. Both have understood a limited message from the Holy Spirit and both may easily be fulfilling God's plan today. It may appear to be a conflict that the Holy Spirit would guide an individual to be a good Catholic (insert your denomination or religion of choice), but the point is that God is working with the lives of independent children who must learn to follow him one step at a time. During the Millennium there will remain more churches than the Church of Jesus Christ; people that seek will find; but if they stop seeking they stop finding. That does not mean that God stops working with them; it only means that they are not actively learning more truth or a higher, more profound, path of discipleship.

[pmccombs1]

I also believe that there are Catholics that are convinced that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ on earth. Both groups suffer from an incomplete understanding of what the Holy Ghost is saying. Both have understood a limited message from the Holy Spirit and both may easily be fulfilling God's plan today.

I appreciate your viewpoint, but it sounds like you are backing off of the "One True Church" doctrine in favor of an ecumenical viewpoint. I have no problem with that.

This thread is about the Holy Ghost saying different things to different people. I come from the perspective of the Holy Ghost saying different things to a single person: me. What ought to be done about that? And secondarily, what are we to make of the conflicts that arise between people to whom the Holy Ghost has said "different things?" If God tells one man his church is true, and also another man that his church is true, does God really expect these two people to understand that this communication means something other than that their respective churches are exceptional? Does God really hope that these two, both confirmed by the Spirit (or so they claim), are to get along and accept each other's claims at face value? You said yourself, "Truth is not relative; what is true for one will always be true for another."

All I'm hearing by way of answers seems to be, "Yes, other people hear the Holy Ghost and are Led by Him. But they don't have as much of the gospel as we do. We are the exception to this, our understanding is correct and we are sure of this. We are exceptional." Well, how do we know? I'm happy with mfbukowski's pragmatism whenever it is introspective. But when it compares itself to others, saying we have more and they less, I'd like to have some justification for that. That would be awfully helpful to untangle the mixed signals that seem to be coming from God.

Edited April 23, 2013 by pmccombs1

[wenglund]

Wade,

Why do you take the time to type "Thanks -Wade Englund-" after each post?

Whom are you thanking, and why?

I am thanking readers of my posts for reading my posts, and I am thanking respondents to my posts for responding. I do so because I genuinely appreciate both.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Most professional philosophers reject Pragmatism; don't make me seem like a fringe element.

CFR!

This poll says that 63% of respondents answered this question affirmatively :

“It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that one could not be taken seriously as an intellectual in the 1990s without forming some kind of opinion as to Rorty’s views.”

http://s-usih.org/2007/06/how-important-was-richard-rorty-to-us.html

There has been a recent resurgence of interest in pragmatism, with several high-profile philosophers exploring and selectively appropriating themes and ideas embedded in the rich tradition of Peirce, James, and Dewey. While the best-known and most controversial of these so-called “neo-pragmatists” is Richard Rorty, the following contemporary philosophers are often considered to be pragmatists: Hilary Putnam, Nicholas Rescher, Jürgen Habermas, Susan Haack, Robert Brandom, and Cornel West.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/pragmati/

Look up Rorty anywhere and you will see some comment about his relevance. So now I want to see a reference that "most professional philosophers reject Pragmatism." CFR please.

You have heard the distinction between the experience and the cause of experiences. If I touch your brain at certain places you may feel as if you are getting out of your body. Does that mean you are getting out of your body? Probably not.

Yawn. Seeing a mirage doesn't mean you get a drink either

And no, I don't believe that all beliefs are warranted, despite your convouted misrepresentations of my positions.

Duly noted but you haven't explained why we should take your interpretation of your experiences as correct.

Again you miss the point. There are no facts, only interpretations, REMEMBER?? The entire point is that one gets to "interpret" experiences without "facts"- they are all interpretations. Why do I have to keep repeating this?

Well, it uses metaphysics.

That is the entire point- apparently you concede it.

All we have to talk about anything is language because that is what "talking" means.

Note this one- because you will see it again soon. This is the insight of all of analytical philosophy. It does not talk about anything but talk. Why? Because it is pointless to talk about what cannot be said. Wittgenstein said that, in essence. Do you realize W's importance for 20th century philosophy analytic and otherwise? Do you realize that W is also often identified with Pragmatism?

mf, to say that there is a world independent of experience (a mind-independent world) doesn't mean that such a world can't be accessed through experience.

Read that one again. I haven't a clue what that is supposed to mean. If anyone else does please explain.

[mfbukowski]

Surely it is meaningful to talk about a plethora of objects we don't perceive.

Please do so. Right now.

Talk about an "object" no human in history has ever perceived. On second thought make that a "plethora" of objects,

Before you said "the Pragmatic half of the analytical portion of Anglo- American philosophy"; now it's Analytic philosophy?

See previous post. My point was that Pragmatists were the first to point out that all we can talk about is talk. And that is the central point of Analytic philosophy. Again- Wittgenstein.

No one said you were making it up. It is still a fact that most philosophers and most of philosophy in the West don't go for your position. I guess there's no hope of you addressing any other point made in my post, is there?

See above.

I haven't seen any "other points" which have not been addressed many times before.

[Bikeemikey]

I think mfbukowski just ate someone for breakfast...