How Do You Tell The Difference Between A True And False Conversion?

[Bikeemikey]

It's not enough to have faith. If your faith isn't focused on the only literally real God, what good is it?

You open with the idea of "placebo effect", a phenomenon that is defined by the principle that unfounded "faith-belief" can be highly efficacious, then follow up by saying that only faith in true principles (Real God) are valuable.

You can't have it both ways... The placebo effect shows that any faith, misguided or in completely false principles, can have high value.

[Bikeemikey]

How do you know the answer you got was from God and not a placebo effect generated by your mind?

I don't, but I have faith and hope it is.

[Calm]

Did Akboy answer his own question? How does he know his experience is "real" and not the result of a placebo effect?

I've lost my place due to a glitch.

[Calm]

Agreed, but there's a big difference between an experience generated by something other our mind (a drug, God, etc.) and an experience generated by our mind simply because we expect an experience. Since it's proven that our mind can generate powerful experiences and changes just because we expect them, then how can a test of truth be trusted when it tells the individual to expect a response?

.

What are the tests of truths for the Bible that do not expect a response?

[Calm]

"There is substantial historical evidence supporting the claims of the New Testament"

Has someone posted evidence of the angels announcing Christ's birth? Of the miracle of the loaves and fishes? Of Jesus' temptation by Satan? Of Christ walking on water? Turning water to wine? Healing of the lepers? Of any of the healings by Christ or his people? Of the resurrection! Of the appearance of Christ to many after his death?

What claims have been supported that demonstrate Jesus is God or that Christ even approves of the collection of books into the Bible?

[thesometimesaint]

Akboy:

 

We might be using different definitions of "real" and "unreal." The physical world is real. Abraham Lincoln and George Washington were real historical figures. Jesus Christ was also a real historical figure. His death and resurrection literally, physically happened. Our belief in those events have nothing to do with whether or not they really happened.

 

No, the gods of greek mythology have never been real for anyone. People may have believed they were real, but they weren't. They were believing in fiction. Their belief didn't help them at all. Belief is pointless, sometimes even destructive and harmful, if it's focused on something that isn't literally real.

 

None of the Biblical authors say anything like 'Pray about what I've taught and you'll receive a witness of it's truth.

 

Real is used in the sense of what can be seen, touched, heard, or smelled as agreed to by most people. Though we do obviously know that everyone has a slight different experience of that reality. IE; If I say the word green we both will visualize a slightly different shade of that green color. It is only when the differences become extreme or leads to irrational behaviors that we label it mental illness.

 

Incorrect. That a man named Yeshua bar Yosef PROBABLY existed some 2000 years ago in Judea. Son of a carpenter, and his wife Mary. Possibly an itinerant peasant preacher. ANYTHING beyond that is a religious belief. Not objective reality. 

 

Incorrect. Those ancient Greek Gods were just as real to those ancient Greeks as our God(s) are to us. Those ancient Greeks built elaborate theologies around, built church buildings, paid tithes and offerings to, prayed to, worshiped, dedicated their lives to, fought wars with Gods of other nations, kindred's, tongues, and peoples. By any object measure those Gods were real.

 

Incorrect. Luke 11:9, So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you^.

Edited April 18, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[mfbukowski]

  Thank you for posting the Rorty lecture. It is new to me.

Thanks for the thanks. 

 

It could be a life-changer if people actually sat through it and understood it.

[Akboy]

You open with the idea of "placebo effect", a phenomenon that is defined by the principle that unfounded "faith-belief" can be highly efficacious, then follow up by saying that only faith in true principles (Real God) are valuable.

You can't have it both ways... The placebo effect shows that any faith, misguided or in completely false principles, can have high value.

Why would a faith in completely false principles have high value? The Egyptians during Moses' time had faith in their gods who controlled the sun, weather and death. The only real God proved their gods were false when he turned the sun off, plagued them with flaming chunks of ice falling from the sky and sending an angel of death to kill their children. They believed in their gods just as much as the Greeks did, but that doesn't change the fact that false gods are nothing more than pieces wood, stone or metal. So how can you be sure you're following the one true God who actually controls the sun, weather, death and everything else?

 

The placebo effect shows that a false faith with no long term value can appear to have value even when it has none.

 

I don't, but I have faith and hope it is.

Why would you trust a test of truth that's open to so much subjectivity?

 

Did Akboy answer his own question? How does he know his experience is "real" and not the result of a placebo effect?

I've lost my place due to a glitch.

I've never prayed and asked God if my church is true while expecting a positive response. When I'm thinking about what doctrines and teachings are true, I try to keep my experiences and expectations out of it. One problem all denominations have is people tend to look at Bible passages and ask 'What is this verse saying to me?' It's an important question, but not the one we should start with. The Bible wasn't actually written to us. Most of Paul's letters were written to specific churches, so we need to figure out what those churches were going through and what Paul's words meant in the original language before we can start thinking about what they mean for us.

 

"There is substantial historical evidence supporting the claims of the New Testament"

Has someone posted evidence of the angels announcing Christ's birth? Of the miracle of the loaves and fishes? Of Jesus' temptation by Satan? Of Christ walking on water? Turning water to wine? Healing of the lepers? Of any of the healings by Christ or his people? Of the resurrection! Of the appearance of Christ to many after his death?

What claims have been supported that demonstrate Jesus is God or that Christ even approves of the collection of books into the Bible?

Have you read More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell? He makes the argument that Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, a legend or Lord, but the Lord answer is the only reasonable conclusion. If he was a liar, why did He die such a gruesome death for a lie? He was a powerful teacher with clear, lucid and logical teachings with a large group of devoted followers for 3 years. He certainly doesn't sound like a lunatic. His resurrection and teachings about being the Christ might be a legend, but that raises many other questions. How did the disciples get His body? How did a few fishermen with little to no formal education start such a powerful movement? Why did they continue to preach the legend when they were facing brutal punishment and death? The only logical conclusion is that He really was the Son of God.

 

Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace is another good example. He uses a similar argument and adds his own professional insight as a cold case detective that the 4 Gospels are structured as reliable eyewitness statements that unintentionally support each other.

 

Real is used in the sense of what can be seen, touched, heard, or smelled as agreed to by most people. Though we do obviously know that everyone has a slight different experience of that reality. IE; If I say the word green we both will visualize a slightly different shade of that green color. It is only when the differences become extreme or leads to irrational behaviors that we label it mental illness.

 

Incorrect. That a man named Yeshua bar Yosef PROBABLY existed some 2000 years ago in Judea. Son of a carpenter, and his wife Mary. Possibly an itinerant peasant preacher. ANYTHING beyond that is a religious belief. Not objective reality. 

 

Incorrect. Those ancient Greek Gods were just as real to those ancient Greeks as our God(s) are to us. Those ancient Greeks built elaborate theologies around, built church buildings, paid tithes and offerings to, prayed to, worshiped, dedicated their lives to, fought wars with Gods of other nations, kindred's, tongues, and peoples. By any object measure those Gods were real.

 

Incorrect. Luke 11:9, So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you^.

On Yeshua bar Yosef, see my above response to calmoriah about More Than a Carpenter.

 

The God of the Bible cannot be seen, touched, heard, smelled or agreed about by most people. But that doesn't mean He's not as real as you, the computer you're using or Abraham Lincoln. Just because something isn't tangible doesn't mean it's not literally real and independent of any of our beliefs.

 

At any time in history, has there been a physically, literally real being named Zeus living on Mount Olympus who could throw physically, literally real lightning bolts down at people? If so, where did he and the other Greek gods go? Greek religious practices had nothing to do with whether or not their gods were real. Egyptian gods are an even better example. They believed in gods who controlled the sun, weather and death. The only real God proved their gods were false when he turned the sun off, plagued them with flaming chunks of ice falling from the sky and sending an angel of death to kill their children. They believed in their gods just as much as the Greeks did, but that doesn't change the fact that false gods are nothing more than pieces wood, stone or metal. So how can you be sure you're following the one true God who actually controls the sun, weather, death and everything else?

 

Do you agree with the LDS doctrine that we are the literal offspring of God the father who is a physical being a lot like us and is living in a spirit realm watching over us? When people pray and get a response from God, do you believe that's a real being they're talking to?

 

Luke 11:9-13 isn't talking about someone who is doubting some teaching and it's not talking about testing whether someone is a false teacher. There are plenty of passages that talk about false teachers and clarifications on gospel doctrine, but none of them tell the reader to 'Pray about what I've taught and receive a witness of it's truth.'

Edited April 19, 2014 by Akboy

[mfbukowski]

Did Akboy answer his own question? How does he know his experience is "real" and not the result of a placebo effect?

I've lost my place due to a glitch.

That is exactly the problem that he does not face.

 

He wants God to be "real" but he doesn't even know what that means- he has no conception that belief in God is an attitude of faith.

 

God is not real to science, yet he is a bible believer.  There is a huge disconnect in his thinking- on one hand he is affirming scientific reality as the only reality and yet he is saying that God is real when clearly God is not scientifically proven

 

He doesn't get that his own faith in God is subject to the same criticism he is leveling.  It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

If I had time to play games with him I would take on an atheist role with him and attack his whole presumption that God is "real" and  challenge  him to prove that his own faith is not based on the placebo effect.

 

I tried that already but he did not understand the argument .

 

I'm done with him.  He cannot see the inconsistency of his position.

[mfbukowski]

Why would a faith in completely false principles have high value? Many people had faith in what Jim Jones was talking about and ended up drinking his poison kool aid. Many people have killed themselves in suicide bombings because of their faith in Islam. What value do those faiths have?

 

The placebo effect shows that a false faith with no long term value can appear to have value even when it has none.

 

Why would you trust a test of truth that's open to so much subjectivity?

 

I've never prayed and asked God if my church is true while expecting a positive response. When I'm thinking about what doctrines and teachings are true, I try to keep my experiences and expectations out of it. One problem all denominations have is people tend to look at Bible passages and ask 'What is this verse saying to me?' It's an important question, but not the one we should start with. The Bible wasn't actually written to us. Most of Paul's letters were written to specific churches, so we need to figure out what those churches were going through and what Paul's words meant in the original language before we can start thinking about what they mean for us.

 

Have you read More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell? He makes the argument that Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, a legend or Lord, but the Lord answer is the only reasonable conclusion. If he was a liar, why did He die such a gruesome death for a lie? He was a powerful teacher with clear, lucid and logical teachings with a large group of devoted followers for 3 years. He certainly doesn't sound like a lunatic. His resurrection and teachings about being the Christ might be a legend, but that raises many other questions. How did the disciples get His body? How did a few fishermen with little to no formal education start such a powerful movement? Why did they continue to preach the legend when they were facing brutal punishment and death? The only logical conclusion is that He really was the Son of God.

 

Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace is another good example. He uses a similar argument and adds his own professional insight as a cold case detective that the 4 Gospels are structured as reliable eyewitness statements that unintentionally support each other.

 

On Yeshua bar Yosef, see my above response to calmoriah about More Than a Carpenter.

 

The God of the Bible cannot be seen, touched, heard, smelled or agreed about by most people. But that doesn't mean He's not as real as you, the computer you're using or Abraham Lincoln. Just because something isn't tangible doesn't mean it's not literally real and independent of any of our beliefs.

 

At any time in history, has there been a physically, literally real being named Zeus living on Mount Olympus who could throw physically, literally real lightning bolts down at people? If so, where did he and the other Greek gods go? Greek religious practices had nothing to do with whether or not their gods were real. Egyptian gods are an even better example. They believed in gods who controlled the sun, weather and death. The only real God proved their gods were false when he turned the sun off, plagued them with flaming chunks of ice falling from the sky and sending an angel of death to kill their children. They believed in their gods just as much as the Greeks did, but that doesn't change the fact that false gods are nothing more than pieces wood, stone or metal. So how can you be sure you're following the one true God who actually controls the sun, weather, death and everything else?

 

Do you agree with the LDS doctrine that we are the literal offspring of God the father who is a physical being a lot like us and is living in a spirit realm watching over us? When people pray and get a response from God, do you believe that's a real being they're talking to?

 

Luke 11:9-13 isn't talking about someone who is doubting some teaching and it's not talking about testing whether someone is a false teacher. There are plenty of passages that talk about false teachers and clarifications on gospel doctrine, but none of them tell the reader to 'Pray about what I've taught and receive a witness of it's truth.'

The bible is a historical novel and you have been duped.

 

No one died for you- why would they?  It is a plot to collect your money.  People do not come back from the dead.  It is all made up.

 

You want reality? THAT is reality.  Your belief in all that nonsense IS the placebo effect.  You think you are saved?

 

You will be dead like everyone else and rot in the grave.  Stop your silly fantasies.  Your silly books are nonsense, written to take your money.

 

How do you handle that one?

Edited April 19, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Akboy]

That is exactly the problem that he does not face.

 

He wants God to be "real" but he doesn't even know what that means- he has no conception that belief in God is an attitude of faith.

 

God is not real to science, yet he is a bible believer.  There is a huge disconnect in his thinking- on one hand he is affirming scientific reality as the only reality and yet he is saying that God is real when clearly God is not scientifically proven

 

He doesn't get that his own faith in God is subject to the same criticism he is leveling.  It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

If I had time to play games with him I would take on an atheist role with him and attack his whole presumption that God is "real" and  challenge  him to prove that his own faith is not based on the placebo effect.

 

I tried that already but he did not understand the argument .

 

I'm done with him.  He cannot see the inconsistency of his position.

Just because someone disagrees with your argument doesn't mean they didn't understand it.

 

No, I've never said anything like 'scientific reality is the only reality.' I'm not saying science is superior to faith. The scientific examples of the placebo effect are interesting to read, but they aren't the only basis for my point. If the Bible had a verse similar to Moroni 10:4-5, then you would be right that I'm obsessing over science, but the Bible doesn't have a similar verse. There are about 10 books in the New Testament that mention false teachers, including one (Galatians) with a primary theme of reinforcing the gospel to a church that had been 'bewitched' by false teachers. None of those passages say anything like 'Pray about what I've taught and you'll receive a witness of it's truth.'

 

Other passages show how susceptible humans are to deception or false teachings, like Jesus' teaching about people who think they're following His teachings, but really aren't. Jeremiah 17:9 should also be considered: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

 

Science is part of this discussion, but it isn't my passion or my focus. My passion is faith based on truth. Faith is useless if it's not focused on the only real God. The Egyptians during Moses' time had faith in their gods who controlled the sun, weather and death. The only real God proved their gods were false when he turned the sun off, plagued them with flaming chunks of ice falling from the sky and sending an angel of death to kill their children. They believed in their gods just as much as the Greeks did, but that doesn't change the fact that false gods are nothing more than pieces wood, stone or metal. So how can you be sure you're following the one true God who actually controls the sun, weather, death and everything else?

Edited April 19, 2014 by Akboy

[mfbukowski]

Just because someone disagrees with your argument doesn't mean they didn't understand it.

 

No, I've never said anything like 'scientific reality is the only reality.' I'm not saying science is superior to faith. The scientific examples of the placebo effect are interesting to read, but they aren't the only basis for my point. If the Bible had a verse similar to Moroni 10:4-5, then you would be right that I'm obsessing over science, but the Bible doesn't have a similar verse. There are about 10 books in the New Testament that mention false teachers, including one (Galatians) with a primary theme of reinforcing the gospel to a church that had been 'bewitched' by false teachers. None of those passages say anything like 'Pray about what I've taught and you'll receive a witness of it's truth.'

 

Other passages show how susceptible humans are to deception or false teachings, like Jesus' teaching about people who think they're following His teachings, but really aren't. Jeremiah 17:9 should also be considered: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

 

Science is part of this discussion, but it isn't my passion or my focus. My passion is faith based on truth. Faith is useless if it's not focused on the only real God. The Egyptians during Moses' time had faith in their gods who controlled the sun, weather and death. The only real God proved their gods were false when he turned the sun off, plagued them with flaming chunks of ice falling from the sky and sending an angel of death to kill their children. They believed in their gods just as much as the Greeks did, but that doesn't change the fact that false gods are nothing more than pieces wood, stone or metal. So how can you be sure you're following the one true God who actually controls the sun, weather, death and everything else?

Oh

 

My

 

Gosh.

 

How can you?????????

 

You are following blindly.  Read James 1:5 over and over until it sinks in.  Compare it to Moroni 10:4-5.

 

I wish you well in your quest for truth.  Right now you need to open your eyes.  I tried shock treatment but it didn't work.

 

God wants to tell you the truth, but you won't listen.  Ask him.

[Bikeemikey]

Oh

My

Gosh.

How can you?????????

You are following blindly. Read James 1:5 over and over until it sinks in. Compare it to Moroni 10:4-5.

I wish you well in your quest for truth. Right now you need to open your eyes. I tried shock treatment but it didn't work.

God wants to tell you the truth, but you won't listen. Ask him.

This guys clearly does not understand the points being made...

I'm moving on. As always, thanks for your posts.

[mfbukowski]

This guys clearly does not understand the points being made...

I'm moving on. As always, thanks for your posts.

Thanks for yours!

[Akboy]

Oh

 

My

 

Gosh.

 

How can you?????????

 

You are following blindly.  Read James 1:5 over and over until it sinks in.  Compare it to Moroni 10:4-5.

 

I wish you well in your quest for truth.  Right now you need to open your eyes.  I tried shock treatment but it didn't work.

 

God wants to tell you the truth, but you won't listen.  Ask him.

With almost 500 posts here, I've seen James 1:5 come up many times and there are plenty of differences between it and Moroni 10.

 

1. James refers to them as "brethren," so they're already believers. That group wouldn't need to pray about whether or not they're following the right church.

 

2. Verses 2-4 talk about those brethren facing and enduring trials, not wondering about which religion is true.

 

3. Verse 5 is about asking for wisdom. Why does James use the term "wisdom?" Isn't wisdom about wisely applying the knowledge you already have?  If James worded the verse something like 'If any of you is doubting your faith . . .' or 'If any of you lacks confidence in your beliefs . . .,' then it would match Moroni 10, but James just talks about wisdom.

 

4. Verse 5 also certainly does not tell us to expect a specific answer.

 

5. James says God gives this wisdom "to all men generously." If you're right and it's wisdom about what church to follow, then why didn't God give that wisdom generously to all men who asked about what church to follow during the apostasy? Surely Joseph Smith wasn't the first person in 1700+ years to be confused by the conflicting churches. Martin Luther was asking. Did God give that wisdom to him generously?

 

6. If the wisdom was about which church to join, how do you think verse 7 fits? For let not that man expect that he will receive anything from the Lord,

 

7. Acts 17:11 commends a group of Jews for comparing Paul's teaching with scriptures. 1 Thess. 5:21 talks about testing prophesies. I John 4:1-3 talks about testing spirits to see if they're from God by comparing them with doctrine. Again, none of those passages say anything like 'Pray about what I've taught and you'll receive a witness of it's truth,' and neither does James 1:5 or the rest of the NT.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Akboy

[Bikeemikey]

With almost 500 posts here, I've seen James 1:5 come up many times and there are plenty of differences.

1. James refers to them as "brethren," so they're already believers. That group wouldn't need to pray about whether or not they're following the right church.

2. Verses 2-4 talk about those brethren facing and enduring trials, not wondering about which religion is true.

3. Verse 5 is about asking for wisdom. Why does James use the term "wisdom?" Isn't wisdom about wisely applying the knowledge you already have? If James worded the verse something like 'If any of you is doubting your faith . . .' or 'If any of you lacks confidence in your beliefs . . .,' then it would match Moroni 10, but James just talks about wisdom.

4. Verse 5 also certainly does not tell us to expect a specific answer.

5. James says God gives this wisdom "to all men generously." If you're right and it's wisdom about what church to follow, then why didn't God give that wisdom generously to all men who asked about what church to follow during the apostasy? Surely Joseph Smith wasn't the first person in 1700+ years to be confused by the conflicting churches. Martin Luther was asking. Did God give that wisdom to him generously?

6. If the wisdom was about which church to join, how do you think verse 7 fits? For let not that man expect that he will receive anything from the Lord,

7. Acts 17:11 commends a group of Jews for comparing Paul's teaching with scriptures. 1 Thess. 5:21 talks about testing prophesies. I John 4:1-3 talk about testing spirits to see if they're from God by comparing them with doctrine. Again, none of those passages say anything like 'Pray about what I've taught and you'll receive a witness of it's truth.'

My final post on this thread...

You, my friend, are obtuse.

[Akboy]

My final post on this thread...

You, my friend, are obtuse.

Name calling doesn't make you right. Baseless, unsupported personal attacks don't support your point.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Akboy

[Gervin]

My final post on this thread...

You, my friend, are obtuse.

if true, then your reaction to someone who literally translates this epistle and may actually have a belief in your Lord is incredibly uncharitable.  

[thesometimesaint]

Why would a faith in completely false principles have high value? The Egyptians during Moses' time had faith in their gods who controlled the sun, weather and death. The only real God proved their gods were false when he turned the sun off, plagued them with flaming chunks of ice falling from the sky and sending an angel of death to kill their children. They believed in their gods just as much as the Greeks did, but that doesn't change the fact that false gods are nothing more than pieces wood, stone or metal. So how can you be sure you're following the one true God who actually controls the sun, weather, death and everything else?

 

The placebo effect shows that a false faith with no long term value can appear to have value even when it has none.

 

Why would you trust a test of truth that's open to so much subjectivity?

 

I've never prayed and asked God if my church is true while expecting a positive response. When I'm thinking about what doctrines and teachings are true, I try to keep my experiences and expectations out of it. One problem all denominations have is people tend to look at Bible passages and ask 'What is this verse saying to me?' It's an important question, but not the one we should start with. The Bible wasn't actually written to us. Most of Paul's letters were written to specific churches, so we need to figure out what those churches were going through and what Paul's words meant in the original language before we can start thinking about what they mean for us.

 

Have you read More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell? He makes the argument that Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, a legend or Lord, but the Lord answer is the only reasonable conclusion. If he was a liar, why did He die such a gruesome death for a lie? He was a powerful teacher with clear, lucid and logical teachings with a large group of devoted followers for 3 years. He certainly doesn't sound like a lunatic. His resurrection and teachings about being the Christ might be a legend, but that raises many other questions. How did the disciples get His body? How did a few fishermen with little to no formal education start such a powerful movement? Why did they continue to preach the legend when they were facing brutal punishment and death? The only logical conclusion is that He really was the Son of God.

 

Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace is another good example. He uses a similar argument and adds his own professional insight as a cold case detective that the 4 Gospels are structured as reliable eyewitness statements that unintentionally support each other.

 

On Yeshua bar Yosef, see my above response to calmoriah about More Than a Carpenter.

 

The God of the Bible cannot be seen, touched, heard, smelled or agreed about by most people. But that doesn't mean He's not as real as you, the computer you're using or Abraham Lincoln. Just because something isn't tangible doesn't mean it's not literally real and independent of any of our beliefs.

 

At any time in history, has there been a physically, literally real being named Zeus living on Mount Olympus who could throw physically, literally real lightning bolts down at people? If so, where did he and the other Greek gods go? Greek religious practices had nothing to do with whether or not their gods were real. Egyptian gods are an even better example. They believed in gods who controlled the sun, weather and death. The only real God proved their gods were false when he turned the sun off, plagued them with flaming chunks of ice falling from the sky and sending an angel of death to kill their children. They believed in their gods just as much as the Greeks did, but that doesn't change the fact that false gods are nothing more than pieces wood, stone or metal. So how can you be sure you're following the one true God who actually controls the sun, weather, death and everything else?

 

Do you agree with the LDS doctrine that we are the literal offspring of God the father who is a physical being a lot like us and is living in a spirit realm watching over us? When people pray and get a response from God, do you believe that's a real being they're talking to?

 

Luke 11:9-13 isn't talking about someone who is doubting some teaching and it's not talking about testing whether someone is a false teacher. There are plenty of passages that talk about false teachers and clarifications on gospel doctrine, but none of them tell the reader to 'Pray about what I've taught and receive a witness of it's truth.'

 

"On Yeshua bar Yosef, see my above response to calmoriah about More Than a Carpenter.

 

The God of the Bible cannot be seen, touched, heard, smelled or agreed about by most people. But that doesn't mean He's not as real as you, the computer you're using or Abraham Lincoln. Just because something isn't tangible doesn't mean it's not literally real and independent of any of our beliefs.

 

At any time in history, has there been a physically, literally real being named Zeus living on Mount Olympus who could throw physically, literally real lightning bolts down at people? If so, where did he and the other Greek gods go? Greek religious practices had nothing to do with whether or not their gods were real. Egyptian gods are an even better example. They believed in gods who controlled the sun, weather and death. The only real God proved their gods were false when he turned the sun off, plagued them with flaming chunks of ice falling from the sky and sending an angel of death to kill their children. They believed in their gods just as much as the Greeks did, but that doesn't change the fact that false gods are nothing more than pieces wood, stone or metal. So how can you be sure you're following the one true God who actually controls the sun, weather, death and everything else?

 

Do you agree with the LDS doctrine that we are the literal offspring of God the father who is a physical being a lot like us and is living in a spirit realm watching over us? When people pray and get a response from God, do you believe that's a real being they're talking to?

 

Luke 11:9-13 isn't talking about someone who is doubting some teaching and it's not talking about testing whether someone is a false teacher. There are plenty of passages that talk about false teachers and clarifications on gospel doctrine, but none of them tell the reader to 'Pray about what I've taught and receive a witness of it's truth".

 

To a Jew he was nothing more than a carpenter. Even when he was amongst them.

 

That is a religious belief. Not one of objective reality.

 

The computer I'm using right now is an objective reality. The electronic blips my mind interprets as you are a subjective reality. Abraham Lincoln is moldering in his  grave. What he did is attested to by nonsectarian history.

 

At any time in history, has there been a physically, literally real being named God living in Heaven who could throw physically, literal people into a opening in the earth, literally cover the entire globe with water for about 6 weeks, literally stopped the sun's movement in the sky, climbed a tall mountain and literally saw the entire globe?

 

If tomorrow all Christians were to go to Heaven. Would a belief in the Christian God remain here on earth?

 

Christian religious practices have nothing to do with whether or not their gods are real. See how that works?

 

Then how come all Egyptians aren't Christians?

 

Turning off the sun would have rather disastrous results for the entire earth, not just for Egypt. 

 

So I can neither touch, feel, nor see this God whom resides in Heaven. Strange objective reality you seem to have.

 

As objective reality I can't, but neither can you.

 

Yes I believe LDS doctrine. That is an objective that that I do believe it. I still have a firm belief in God, his Son the Christ, and witnessed to by the Holy Ghost. My subjective reality. A non-Christian probably doesn't believe in Jesus the Christ either. His subjective reality.

 

I'm fine with people believing/serving anything they want to. As for me and my house. We will serve the Lord. I only insist that their right to religiously swing their physical fist ends at my physical nose.

 

How is anyone to determine what God wants without asking him? IE: If you want to know what I believe it is far better to just ask me, than it is to tell me what I believe.

 

The Bible is replete with examples of people doing just that.

Edited April 20, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[mfbukowski]

if true, then your reaction to someone who literally translates this epistle and may actually have a belief in your Lord is incredibly uncharitable.  

Judge not lest ye be judged.

[mfbukowski]

With almost 500 posts here, I've seen James 1:5 come up many times and there are plenty of differences between it and Moroni 10.

 

1. James refers to them as "brethren," so they're already believers. That group wouldn't need to pray about whether or not they're following the right church.

 

2. Verses 2-4 talk about those brethren facing and enduring trials, not wondering about which religion is true.

 

3. Verse 5 is about asking for wisdom. Why does James use the term "wisdom?" Isn't wisdom about wisely applying the knowledge you already have?  If James worded the verse something like 'If any of you is doubting your faith . . .' or 'If any of you lacks confidence in your beliefs . . .,' then it would match Moroni 10, but James just talks about wisdom.

 

4. Verse 5 also certainly does not tell us to expect a specific answer.

 

5. James says God gives this wisdom "to all men generously." If you're right and it's wisdom about what church to follow, then why didn't God give that wisdom generously to all men who asked about what church to follow during the apostasy? Surely Joseph Smith wasn't the first person in 1700+ years to be confused by the conflicting churches. Martin Luther was asking. Did God give that wisdom to him generously?

 

6. If the wisdom was about which church to join, how do you think verse 7 fits? For let not that man expect that he will receive anything from the Lord,

 

7. Acts 17:11 commends a group of Jews for comparing Paul's teaching with scriptures. 1 Thess. 5:21 talks about testing prophesies. I John 4:1-3 talks about testing spirits to see if they're from God by comparing them with doctrine. Again, none of those passages say anything like 'Pray about what I've taught and you'll receive a witness of it's truth,' and neither does James 1:5 or the rest of the NT.

I suppose this won't do any good but I will try again anyway.  I could take apart all of your quotes and show you how you are wrong but that still would not go to the heart of the issue

 

How do you even know the Bible is true and not just legend?  The fact that it contains "real" place names and tells stories about people who probably were not even "real" is certainly not proof of anything.  The story of the resurrection and all your detective's conclusions are based on the story in the bible.  They are circular.

 

He assumes the story in the bible is true- that the apostles existed, that people saw Jesus, that every word in the Bible is historically accurate, and then goes back and makes a case- from evidence found in the Bible- that in deed the Bible is true.

 

I can make up a story about real places also and fill it with fictional characters who say and do things that make sense in a made-up way.  That is why I said the Bible was historical fiction.  Suppose it is???!?!

 

It is all legends.  Scholars today do not believe that the exodus even happened or that Moses lived.  "Isaiah" was probably two or more people who may have lived hundreds of years apart.

 

The story of the resurrection could be pure fantasy, and the story of the testimonies of the apostles who were supposed witnesses could be all fiction.  People do not come back from the dead. 

 

Because it contains some place names we know today, says absolutely nothing about the religious truths it contains.

 

Because there is a city named Jerusalem, THAT does not make Jesus the savior of the world. 

 

It is amazing to me that you cannot understand that argument.  And don't come back with bible verses to prove the bible is true.  That's the whole point!

 

I believe the bible is inspired scripture from God but I accept that on FAITH.  It is not logical in the slightest, it is not based on evidence or logic because there isn't any.

 

Donkeys don't talk, people do not get swallowed by whales, there is not enough water in the world to cover all the continents, and it goes on and on.

 

The bible is not a work about his-story it is God's story.

 

The only way you can possibly know that is if God tells you that.  And God has also told me that there are prophets today, and that Joseph also was one.

 

That is as perfectly logical as the idea that Moses talked to God in a burning bush- meaning both are illogical.

 

So what is your proof for the truth of the Bible without using the Bible as proof?

Edited April 20, 2014 by mfbukowski

[brainburn]

Thanks for the replies, everyone! This is really challenging. I have to put a lot of thought into my responses. I don't get as much time as I'd like to think about it :] Forgive me if it's not so timely.

 

I'm aware that the argument as explained so far isn't complete. My approach is to present everything as well as I can and then, through the direction of the very useful feedback of the members here, figure out what needs elaboration. I apologize for any confusion. Just let me know exactly what you find confusing and I'll be sure to respond as best I can.

 

First I think it'd be really helpful to explain how I define the "truth" of a "conversion". It's not as black and white as I worded ("true or false") it to seem. More like a spectrum or combination... So, here it is:

 

First, a "conversion" is a spiritual experience which creates the "cause to believe" in one or a combination of the many supernatural models of reality. I'm aware that many people use this word for many other reasons, but I hope it's well understood that I'm not here to debate the semantics of the term "conversion". Just know that when I use the word, it's to express the idea I've just defined. If we can agree on this, continue reading :] If not, you should just stop here and respond if you like.

 

Now, the tricky part is explaining what I mean by "true" or "false".

 

The "truth" or "falsehood" of a conversion is the degree to which the supernatural model of reality identified in the experience is true or false. So effectively, the degree to which a supernatural model of reality is true (in this context) is the degree to which it corresponds (yes, I meant to use that word) to the factual supernatural reality we experience ourselves existing in.

 

If your alarm bells are going off (ahem, mfbukowski), here's where you'll have to bear with me. I've been thinking about how to explain this particular point for probably over a year now. I believe I'm getting a bit closer but we'll see.

 

...So, this is not to say that I personally believe "correspondence" can be "known" or 100% confirmed. I don't. Never really have. Never really wanted to talk about it, but it can be related to the discussion I do want to have. I think I've been confusing the discussion by not making this clear.

 

To make it absolutely clear, since considering the possibility many years ago, I believe you simply and mysteriously experience. Then, through equally mysterious mechanisms, our minds constructs a theoretical model of an objective reality that works in combination with our experience of subjective reality.  But most importantly, that objective model we each operate by is a correspondence theory. Although it can never be known absolutely, it's written into the fabric of our experience. We act as if our chosen model of objective reality, things within and beyond our experience, corresponds to a true reality.

 

But supernaturally, the story could be different. It is possible that there is a way to supernaturally confirm knowledge of correspondence in a conversion experience.

 

In terms of natural knowledge, there is a barrier between what we experience and what is beyond our experience. I've never denied this. When it seems that I do deny this, what's being overlooked (ahem, mfbukowski), is that I am not explaining what I deny and what I'm explaining is only partially explained at that point. Here's as close as I can get to the entire thought:

 

1. The difference between true and false conversion experiences is a mystery.

2. If we can't tell the difference between a true and false conversion, then we have no way to tell the difference between a true and false supernatural model of reality.

 

Within (2) is another related but separate discussion:

 

----------2A. Some supernatural models of reality have posited a supernatural mechanism for confirming correspondence.

----------2B. If we can't tell the difference between true and false supernatural models of reality, then we don't know that correspondence can't be confirmed.

----------2C. To claim that correspondence can't be confirmed, (ahem, mfbukowski), is to implicitly claim to know a difference between true and false conversions. It's the same as saying that if you believe your conversion experience produced knowledge of anything beyond your experience, it's not as true as you think you know. Making the statement that correspondence theory of knowledge is useless is doesn't factor in the possibility of a supernatural correspondence theory of knowledge.

 

Then back to the original discussion:

 

3. If we can't tell the difference between a true and false supernatural model of reality, then what explains the fact that people believe they have found the answer through their conversion experience?

 

How do we explain the fact that people are "converted" to conflicting supernatural models of reality?

 

And if you're still following, you'll notice that (3) has brought us back to (1). To explain why people feel they are converted to conflicting supernatural models of reality is to explain the difference between a true and false conversion experience.

 

Question: How do you tell the difference between a true and false conversion?
Answer: I refer to beliefs confirmed through my conversion experience.
Question (again): The epistemic utility of those beliefs depends on the original question: how do you tell the difference between a true and false conversion?
Answer (again): I refer to beliefs confirmed in my true conversion experience.

 

...and we return to the pattern.

 

So far, in this round, those who believe that you can tell the difference between a true and false conversion without a circular fallacy have offered pragmatism as an answer which doesn't refer to any supernatural model of reality as true or false.

 

The problem I see with the pragmatic solution is that if you convert to a certain supernatural model of reality that sorts out true and false conversion experiences for pragmatic reasons, you are effectively solving an epistemic problem with a non-epistemic answer.

 

The logical equivalent of claiming that you know that what's behind Door #1 is better than all the other doors because you've experienced a powerful conversion to a useful life lesson written on it. In reality, there are millions of people experiencing millions of conversions to other doors with just as powerful conversion experiences. Because we can't tell which conversion experiences are true or false by how powerful their utility is, we can't say that we're actually solving the problem of which door is better than all the others.

 

[brainburn]

Wow. I've spent the last week retyping and retyping that one post and it's a huge mess still, lol. Thanks to anyone who's still willing to work with me.

[Akboy]

To a Jew he was nothing more than a carpenter. Even when he was amongst them.

 

That is a religious belief. Not one of objective reality.

We really need to define some terms, so I'll use dictionary.reference.com

 

Objective adjective

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:

 

Subjective adjective

existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought

 

Are those the definitions you're using?

 

The events of 2000 years ago are not just 'existing in the mind,' so they are not subjective. Either Jesus was who He said He was, the Son of God, or the 4 Gospels are explained by one of the other theories like liar, legend or lunatic. If the Gospels are reliable eyewitness statements, then Jesus dying and rising again was an objective reality. What exists or doesn't exist in your mind has nothing to do with the objective reality of whatever happened 2000 years ago.

 

Yes, faith does exist in your mind. But, again, faith needs to be focused on objective reality for it to do any good. The Egyptian gods of death, the sun and weather only existed in the minds of the Egyptians, so their faith was pointless and powerless. If the events in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's visions weren't objective realities, then they only existed in Smith's mind and others who followed the faith, which would also be pointless and powerless.

 

 

At any time in history, has there been a physically, literally real being named God living in Heaven who could throw physically, literal people into a opening in the earth, literally cover the entire globe with water for about 6 weeks, literally stopped the sun's movement in the sky, climbed a tall mountain and literally saw the entire globe?

I don't know where you're getting the part about climbing a mountain and seeing the entire globe. Other than that, yes, I believe the rest of those events literally happened as objectively real events. Also, 'turning off the sun' was poor wording on my part. Yes, I believe the plague of darkness in Exodus was an objectively real event.

 

Don't you believe those events actually happened in objective reality? What do you think the Bible is? Are the stories mainly figurative and metaphorical, or is it, for the most part, a historical document that describes real, objective events?

 

 

A non-Christian probably doesn't believe in Jesus the Christ either. His subjective reality.

So what? What do the beliefs of a non-Christian have to do with any of this?

 

 

How is anyone to determine what God wants without asking him? IE: If you want to know what I believe it is far better to just ask me, than it is to tell me what I believe.

Of course, prayer and talking to God is a huge part of faith. I never suggested otherwise. The problem is Moroni 10 tells us to ask God a question while assuming we know the answer before we even ask the question. Does that work in any other type of prayer? I bet you pray about important decisions like choosing the leaders in your stakes and wards. If John Doe is being considered for some leadership position, do you assume the answer will be 'yes' before you pray about it? If you try to avoid assumption about something like that, shouldn't you also avoid assumptions in important questions like 'Are these words actually from God?'

 

He assumes the story in the bible is true- that the apostles existed, that people saw Jesus, that every word in the Bible is historically accurate, and then goes back and makes a case- from evidence found in the Bible- that in deed the Bible is true.

Nope, not true at all. He was an atheist when he started investigating the gospels. In my church's Easter service, my pastor gave multiple separate examples of atheists who hated and mocked Christianity. They set out to prove Christians wrong and became Christians in the process. They absolutely did not assume the story in the Bible is true. I think this link talks about some of those former atheists: http://www.christianity.co.nz/res-3.htm

 

Or you could actually read Cold Case Christianity so you know what you're talking about. It's less than $10 on kindle or used paperback: http://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates-ebook/dp/B00A71Y7I8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398036588&sr=1-1&keywords=cold+case+christianity

 

I'm reading The Continuous Atonement by Brad Wilcox, a very pro-LDS book: http://www.amazon.com/Continuous-Atonement-Brad-Wilcox-ebook/dp/B00309SD3E/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398037380&sr=1-1&keywords=continuous+atonement

Are you willing to read something as well?

Edited April 21, 2014 by Akboy

[mfbukowski]

brainburn

3. If we can't tell the difference between a true and false supernatural model of reality, then what explains the fact that people believe they have found the answer through their conversion experience?

You don't understand truth and falsity- see below.  Truth is a human invention because it is linguistic.

 

They those people have found AN answer that is satisfactory to them.  That's the best anyone can hope for. 

 

The fact that they BELIEVE, as you do, that "the world is out there" AND that you can say anything about it which "corresponds" to it is because they are wrong, and haven't thought it through. 

 

Not many people in the world understand that truth is not correspondence, but once you see it, you can never go back.  That is all I hope you see and why I am spending so much time- because you are so dang close, and now closer than ever.

 

TRUTH IS WHAT WORKS.  Gravitational theories are true because they predict the experiences we will have if we rely on them.

Ethical theories ("treat others the way you want to be treated") are true because they work to make a peaceful life and society and allow life to continue.

The problem I see with the pragmatic solution is that if you convert to a certain supernatural model of reality that sorts out true and false conversion experiences for pragmatic reasons, you are effectively solving an epistemic problem with a non-epistemic answer.

 

The logical equivalent of claiming that you know that what's behind Door #1 is better than all the other doors because you've experienced a powerful conversion to a useful life lesson written on it. In reality, there are millions of people experiencing millions of conversions to other doors with just as powerful conversion experiences. Because we can't tell which conversion experiences are true or false by how powerful their utility is, we can't say that we're actually solving the problem of which door is better than all the others.

I haven't a clue what "you are effectively solving an epistemic problem with a non-epistemic answer." means.  See below at the end of this post.

 

Having certainty about what is behind door 1 and in fact experiencing what is behind door 1 are two different things.

 

Maybe it's the lady and maybe its the tiger.  Oh well.

 

The entire point is that its the certainty that makes your life have meaning.

 

So you may be certain that you can stand up from your chair and walk across the room and open the door and you will walk into your yard.  You have never conceived the possibility that 3 seconds from that thought, we will have a 9.5 earthquake and the house will fall on you.

 

You have lived your whole life, perfectly happily thinking that you will live to the age 94 not conceiving that you will die when the roof caves in at age 26.

 

Would your life have been better knowing about your premature death?  What if it includes the fact that you will be buried alive in agony for three days before you finally actually die while a hungry dog chews on your feet?

 

(Sorry to be gross- I just wanted to make the point).  Would your life be better knowing that you will never have children, never get married, never achieve any of your goals? 

 

You live every moment of your life on faith that when you go to school, there will still be a civilization around for you to have a pleasant life in.  Your goals motivate your existence and give you hope.

 

THAT is religion.  The "truth" of religion is based on faith- hope for things UNSEEN.  Just as you are confident that your feet will not be chewed by starving dogs, we are confident that we will have a pleasant afterlife.

 

You have no evidence that your feet will not be chewed by starving dogs, we have no scientific evidence for religion.  That's the way it works.

 

People want Obama to win, people want Obama to lose.  People want to take a trip to Europe and save their money.  People want to finish school and become a lawyer.  People want to save the whales or stop climate change or save the earth from an asteroid.

 

Any goal, any effort anyone makes on anything requires the faith that they are doing whatever they are doing for a purpose.

 

Yet they may be mistaken.  Mars may fall into the earth, or you could get hit by a truck or killed in a tornado.  But lives require a sense of purpose and a sense of meaning.

 

It it's all meaningless and a joke, might as well just die right now- right?  Rot in the grave- who cares.  One must have meaning and purpose in life in the face of uncertainty that any of it will happen.

 

So THAT is what religion is. 

 

The truth part you have been waiting for:

 

As far as truth being in the world, here is a quote from Rorty's Contingency Irony and Solidarity p4-5

We need to make a distinction between the claim that the world is out there and the claim that the truth is out there.  To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages and that human languages are human creations.

Truth cannot be out there - cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot.

 

Maybe that has to do with your word "epistemic" which I have no cue what it means.

 

There are only experiences, and expressing human experiences.  There is no "knowing what is out there" independent of human experience, period.

 

Yes, people claim to "know what's out there" independent of human experience, but they are fools  That is a self-contradiction as long as you are a human and I think we all are.

 

Everything we can know is a human experience and everything we can say is said in human language which is a product of the human brain/mind/spirit/soul/whatever.

 

It's human all the way down and can never be otherwise.  And that is what I love about the LDS.  Even God is a human, so God's language is human language.  But that is for another day.

Edited April 21, 2014 by mfbukowski