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

[Nemesis]

Everyone keep the personal jabs and attacks out of the threads.  Read the board guidelines.

 

Nemesis

[brainburn]

That still doesn't explain why you introduce theories than have no support. There's been many books written on the historical and logical evidence for the traditional interpretation of the Gospels. What's the point in inventing theories that don't make any sense?

 

Romans 1:19-20

 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

 

God has revealed Himself in nature so all men are without excuse. You have that and the whole Bible as special revelation to show you a lot more about God, yet you're still hiding behind stupid theories about aliens. What if the rapture happens tomorrow and you still don't believed because you're too busy thinking about how you might be in The Matrix? What would you say to God? Do you think He would be amused by you listing all the other things He could have been?

Supernatural explanations also make evidence tricky. And they definitely do make sense as far as supernatural explanations go.  

 

But it's tricky because how can you say for sure what evidence to expect from each possible supernatural explanation?

 

The principle that goes something like "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic comes" to mind. That's not to argue that magic is technology, although it could be. The point is that because supernatural experiences could be so beyond our comprehension... there's no way to deduce exactly what produces them. There could be an infinite different objective supernatural explanations for the same subjective experience, so it's really difficult to come up with any science or testable model of spiritual experience.

 

For example...

If you have a spiritual experience, what evidence would allow you deduce whether it was a God or a Demi-God?

Because it's supernatural, we can't really tell when we're misinterpreting.

 

Some would say in that particular case, it doesn't matter... but neverthless, the logic stands. Out of all possible supernatural beings or explanation, you basically have to take the experience at face value. How do we know we've looked behind the final curtain? While there are plenty of satisfactory pragmatic or emotional arguments, there's no logical or epistemic argument for it being one particular type of supernatural being and not another. I'm sure if you deeply followed the logic of your own argument, you would find a subjective preference at the bottom. I'm up to being challenged to defend this prediction, too.

 

As far as entertaining your argument about what I would say to God if the rapture happened tomorrow...

I would explain that I always intended to figure out some way to solve the mystery of what causes supernatural experiences, but I never could because the possible causes and even reality itself were too mysterious us to comprehend. At least, too mysterious for us to comprehend with the perceptive tools God gave us.

 

And then at that point I'd be at God's mercy.

Edited April 24, 2014 by brainburn

[brainburn]

Statements never "correspond" to "reality" beyond what is in the statement if they are supernatural or not.  I have no clue what such would constitute such "correspondence"

Right. It's a bit mysterious... you or I may have no clue but the person who believes it experienced it happen supernaturally.

 

Language is not experience, it symbolizes experience.

I never suggested that the language is experience...... but now that I think about it. Why not?

Actually, allow me to go on a little tangent here and try a different angle:

What if God spoke to you and supernaturally you experienced that language? God speaking to you would be experiencing truth.

Then because you know what you experience, you could conceive of language that corresponds to that truth?

 

There is no supernatural language- it is all natural.  There is no supernatural period- to God it is all natural.  God speaks (when he communicates with people) in human language.  Spirit to spirit communication is direct "telepathy"- my thoughts are God's thoughts- and is not linguistic.

"There is no supernatural period".

 

Hmm...

 

That sounds an awful lot like an objective statement of fact, mfbukowski. Maybe you meant to phrase it differently? 

 

If you are saying that we can have a revealed testimony that the resurrection "really happened" then yes of course that can be revealed to us.

 

If as I said in post 119 you mean that God can reveal that human words "correspond" to some divine reality- ie: that divine experience can be put into human words and therefore correspond to the divine experience, no that is not possible.  It is no more possible than God making a boulder so big he cannot lift it- etc- that is a contradiction.

Very interesting.

But again, exactly what is contradicting what?

I don't see the contradiction. I see that you are suggesting language as incapable of expressing divine experience, which seems too mysterious and nuanced to really be as certain as you're suggesting...

 

But I take it you can explain the argument for why it's impossible for human language to construct an idea that could sufficiently correspond to divine experience?

That sounds awfully objective, too. How could you know that there is absolutely no possible way to linguistically express any possible divine experience?

 

Sounds like you would have to understand the objective limits of language and the objective details of divine experience that would apply to all possible attempts for language to represent divine experience?

 

 

I think it is rude to make me go through all the possibilities of what might be going through your head when you cannot even elucidate what you mean.  I am not a mind reader either.  But for some stupid naive reason I really think you are interested in this and not yanking my chain so I persist.

Aww, come on! I'm having fun!

I'm trying my best to explain. I really am. But it's a cooperative effort ;] It'd help immensely if you explain exactly what would benefit from explanation. You're a prolific "explainator", to say the least, so I'm sure it wouldn't be too much trouble.

 

For the record, I have a testimony that Jesus "really" arose from the dead, that that was an event in history which actually occurred. I know beyond doubt that this is true.

 

What are the above statements?  Does it "correspond" to some event in history?  No- it is a statement about what I believe.  This is an English sentence expressing some feelings about experiences I have had, and describing a mental state of mfbukowski.

 

My belief or knowledge about what happened in history has nothing to do with what "actually happened". 

 

Event E happens.  Later I say "I believe that event E happened".  It is true that I believe event E happened, or that I know that event E happened even if there was no event E.

 

What counts in my life and makes a difference is the belief, not the event.

 

I was talking to a Catholic the other day about his experience of the Eucharist, and he told me about his experience, that Jesus was "really there".

 

I could have used those exact words to describe my experience of the sacrament.  The importance was the belief we both shared.

 

But was Jesus "really" in either place?  Does Jesus even "really" exist?  That is unknowable and therefore irrelevant.  The importance in my life is that I believe- know - that Christ lives and is a force for good in my life.

 

I am not tied down to having to believe in the historicity of some legends or some gold plates. 

 

The history is irrelevant to me- it does not constrain my belief one iota.  I know that Jesus lives, I know that Joseph was a prophet and that the church is true.

 

That statement has nothing to do with history- it has to do with me.

 

It is a statement about what is happening in my mind/heart/soul, and how I am a better human because of what is happening inside me.

Understood. Really, you don't need to go into such elaboration when you repeat this. I know you're getting tired of it. You could simply reference it somehow?

[brainburn]

 

Matthew 7:

7 ¶ ^aAsk, and it shall be ^bgiven you; ^cseek, and ye shall find; ^dknock, and it shall be opened unto you:

  8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that ^aseeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

  9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask ^abread, will he give him a stone?

  10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

  11 If ye then, ^abeing evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

 

All things being simple if I ask Heavenly Father what His will is for me and the LDS missionaries show up at the door I have to assume the gift is true. Why would He hand me a stone? or a serpent?

 

How do you know this except through confirmation by a spiritual experience?

 

The question is how to know which spiritual experiences are really confirming spiritual paradigms and which are powerful misunderstandings.

 

Because it seems that your answer is simply a reference to a spiritual paradigm which begs the question of which spiritual experiences we can trust to confirm these kinds of ideas...

[mfbukowski]

Right. It's a bit mysterious... you or I may have no clue but the person who believes it experienced it happen supernaturally.

 

I never suggested that the language is experience...... but now that I think about it. Why not?

Actually, allow me to go on a little tangent here and try a different angle:

What if God spoke to you and supernaturally you experienced that language? God speaking to you would be experiencing truth.

Then because you know what you experience, you could conceive of language that corresponds to that truth?

 

"There is no supernatural period".

 

Hmm...

 

That sounds an awful lot like an objective statement of fact, mfbukowski. Maybe you meant to phrase it differently? 

 

Very interesting.

But again, exactly what is contradicting what?

I don't see the contradiction. I see that you are suggesting language as incapable of expressing divine experience, which seems too mysterious and nuanced to really be as certain as you're suggesting...

 

But I take it you can explain the argument for why it's impossible for human language to construct an idea that could sufficiently correspond to divine experience?

That sounds awfully objective, too. How could you know that there is absolutely no possible way to linguistically express any possible divine experience?

 

Sounds like you would have to understand the objective limits of language and the objective details of divine experience that would apply to all possible attempts for language to represent divine experience?

 

 

Aww, come on! I'm having fun!

I'm trying my best to explain. I really am. But it's a cooperative effort ;] It'd help immensely if you explain exactly what would benefit from explanation. You're a prolific "explainator", to say the least, so I'm sure it wouldn't be too much trouble.

 

Understood. Really, you don't need to go into such elaboration when you repeat this. I know you're getting tired of it. You could simply reference it somehow?

I am not here for your amusement.

I am a fool for continuing this farce.

[brainburn]

I am not here for your amusement.

I am a fool for continuing this farce.

:/

 

I guess we'll let the arguments speak for themselves. Thanks for talking while it lasted. It really "worked" for me :]

 

If it means anything, I really think you are an intelligent, well-reasoned person. I'm not here to make fun of you. I'm sorry if I made that impression. I hope you take some interest again!

[brainburn]

And we were just getting into the real discussion... Darn. I'll be mourning this loss of great conversation for a long time.

[Akboy]

How do you know this except through confirmation by a spiritual experience?

 

The question is how to know which spiritual experiences are really confirming spiritual paradigms and which are powerful misunderstandings.

 

Because it seems that your answer is simply a reference to a spiritual paradigm which begs the question of which spiritual experiences we can trust to confirm these kinds of ideas...

That's why you have to take yourself out of it. Just focus on what God revealed in the Bible.

 

Rom. 10

¹⁷ So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

 

Why are you trying to find faith in spiritual experiences when you can see how deceptive and unreliable they can be? Faith comes from God and His word, not spiritual experiences.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Akboy

[rodheadlee]

How do you know this except through confirmation by a spiritual experience?

 

The question is how to know which spiritual experiences are really confirming spiritual paradigms and which are powerful misunderstandings.

 

Because it seems that your answer is simply a reference to a spiritual paradigm which begs the question of which spiritual experiences we can trust to confirm these kinds of ideas...

By the fruit. It's a simple process of elimination. I was praying to God the Father of Jesus Christ. Did some other god answer my prayer? Did the answer to my prayer lead me to Christ? Can some other god offer me eternal life with a resurrected body?

[mfbukowski]

And we were just getting into the real discussion... Darn. I'll be mourning this loss of great conversation for a long time.

This says it all.  You just need to read some Rorty.  Look at this thread and follow it back to a pdf of a book called Contingency Irony and Solidarity.  Read the first two chapters.  I don't have the time to keep talking to you. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63325-are-they-really-prophets-seers-revelators/?p=1209372043

[CV75]

Can anyone help me break this pattern?

Here's another possible way to break the pattern: Describe something that you are converted to (doesn't have to be "spiritual"), and how you were converted, and what is means to you to be converted.

Edited April 24, 2014 by CV75

[Bikeemikey]

Here's another possible way to break the pattern: Describe something that you are converted to (doesn't have to be "spiritual"), and how you were converted, and what is means to you to be converted.

Not sure the idea of conversion, as expressed in this thread, is really applicable to non-religious contexts.

[CV75]

Not sure the idea of conversion, as expressed in this thread, is really applicable to non-religious contexts.

I think it would be interesting to explore the parallels that might help in better understanding either.

[brainburn]

This says it all.  You just need to read some Rorty.  Look at this thread and follow it back to a pdf of a book called Contingency Irony and Solidarity.  Read the first two chapters.  I don't have the time to keep talking to you. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63325-are-they-really-prophets-seers-revelators/?p=1209372043

Ok. Since it doesn't "work" for you to spend time talking to me :/ I'll try to explain this as succinctly as possible:

 

Whenever you think I'm trying to prove that correspondence has been confirmed, I'm only pointing out that it could be possible supernaturally. You're misinterpreting my argument and unnecessarily adding the intention to "prove" correspondence.

Personally, I don't see any reason to accept any natural correspondence theory. I reject natural correspondence theories for the same reasons you do. I don't need to have the same arguments repeated to me. I agree with most of everything Rorty has to say, he's just a drag to listen to sometimes ;]

 

We disagree because I can't get you to explain exactly what about a supernatural theory of correspondence is contradictory. You've explained that language can't sufficiently represent a divine experience, but have done nothing to flesh out this argument and show that it's more than your pragmatic taste. It's my contention that you have to accept it as possible, because it's a supernatural mystery as to whether God can confirm our language corresponds to any reality.

 

And you make really interesting comments like "there is no supernatural" and I'm not sure you can back them up with anything more than your pragmatic taste, again.

[CV75]

And you make really interesting comments like "there is no supernatural" and I'm not sure you can back them up with anything more than your pragmatic taste, again.

It is a matter of taste because it is subjective. I think this is the whole idea behind Elder Packer saying that describing  what testimony is like or what it is like to have one is like describing what salt tastes like. So unless two (or more) people subjectiviely agree that they feel the same Spirit and thus accept what each other has to say by way of testimony is the same thing they understand it to be, there is no way to describe it or convey it -- and that's fine for those who are successful at it. "Where two or three are gathered together in my name..."

[brainburn]

That's why you have to take yourself out of it. Just focus on what God revealed in the Bible.

 

Rom. 10

¹⁷ So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

 

Why are you trying to find faith in spiritual experiences when you can see how deceptive and unreliable they can be? Faith comes from God and His word, not spiritual experiences.

 

By the fruit. It's a simple process of elimination. I was praying to God the Father of Jesus Christ. Did some other god answer my prayer? Did the answer to my prayer lead me to Christ? Can some other god offer me eternal life with a resurrected body?

Ok. So, essentially you both have the same argument so I'll respond to both of you at once.

 

 

When I ask the question, "how do we tell which spiritual experiences we can trust to confirm our spiritual paradigms?"... your only responses (so far) have been to refer to a spiritual paradigm in question.

 

The method you use to sort out which spiritual experiences can be trusted is itself a product of trust in a particular spiritual experience and the rejections of others.

 

It's clearly begging the question. Does that make sense?

 

[brainburn]

Here's another possible way to break the pattern: Describe something that you are converted to (doesn't have to be "spiritual"), and how you were converted, and what is means to you to be converted.

Not sure the idea of conversion, as expressed in this thread, is really applicable to non-religious contexts.

I think it would be interesting to explore the parallels that might help in better understanding either.

I think Bikeemikey is right, but I'll entertain it nonetheless.

 

I'm a convert of "pragamatism" because I see it as the next-best-thing to truth because it simply supports my primal desires, such as the desire to succeed in life and not just murder myself by perpetual confusion. 

It's fundamentally selfish and epistemically incomplete. It's basically a primal response to an unsolvable mystery.

 

It is a matter of taste because it is subjective. I think this is the whole idea behind Elder Packer saying that describing  what testimony is like or what it is like to have one is like describing what salt tastes like. So unless two (or more) people subjectiviely agree that they feel the same Spirit and thus accept what each other has to say by way of testimony is the same thing they understand it to be, there is no way to describe it or convey it -- and that's fine for those who are successful at it. "Where two or three are gathered together in my name..."

Right. So, how could we ever deduce that this taste of salt is the "one true" taste for everyone?

 

Because it seems to me that if someone claimed that salt "tasted" like reincarnation, DMT, or an egoless oneness with the universe, others would say that they must be tasting something besides salt.

[mfbukowski]

We disagree because I can't get you to explain exactly what about a supernatural theory of correspondence is contradictory. You've explained that language can't sufficiently represent a divine experience, but have done nothing to flesh out this argument and show that it's more than your pragmatic taste. It's my contention that you have to accept it as possible, because it's a supernatural mystery as to whether God can confirm our language corresponds to any reality.

We don't talk to God.  It is direct "telepathic" communication spirit to spirit.  No words.  I have told you that several times.  Nothing to "correspond" to,  It IS reality to reality, experience to experience.  His experience is ours and vice versa.  No correspondence.  That's the last time- I tried to say it 93 times without it working, if that doesn't do it, fergitaboutit.

 

Imagine a tactile experience with someone you love.  Direct communication- no correspondence, no words.

 

Preach the gospel at all times, when necessary, use words.

[brainburn]

We don't talk to God.  It is direct "telepathic" communication spirit to spirit.  No words.  I have told you that several times.  Nothing to "correspond" to,  It IS reality to reality, experience to experience.  His experience is ours and vice versa.  No correspondence.  That's the last time- I tried to say it 93 times without it working, if that doesn't do it, fergitaboutit.

 

Imagine a tactile experience with someone you love.  Direct communication- no correspondence, no words.

 

Preach the gospel at all times, when necessary, use words.

I understand what you mean to say... but how do you know that ALL communication with God is telepathic, experience-to-experience communication?

 

That sounds like an objective statement of fact. Do you mean to say it that way? If you do, are you going to provide the logical argument for why that is objective true?

[Akboy]

Ok. So, essentially you both have the same argument so I'll respond to both of you at once.

 

 

When I ask the question, "how do we tell which spiritual experiences we can trust to confirm our spiritual paradigms?"... your only responses (so far) have been to refer to a spiritual paradigm in question.

 

The method you use to sort out which spiritual experiences can be trusted is itself a product of trust in a particular spiritual experience and the rejections of others.

 

It's clearly begging the question. Does that make sense?

No, there are big differences between our responses. Rod is basing his confidence on a subjective experience which contradicts itself. He probably considers following the Bible as part of the experience, but the Bible never mentions spiritual experiences as a way of confirming truth. When Paul is talking about the faith in Galatians and reminding the church of the true gospel, he supports his arguments by referring to doctrines he already taught and Old Testament passages, not by encouraging people to pray about it.

 

My response is almost the opposite because I'm saying 'stop looking for reliable spiritual experiences because there is no such thing.' Prayer and spiritual experiences play an important role, but it's not to tell us which faith system is true. Our hearts are far too deceptive and prone to persuasion.

 

What exactly are you looking for, brainburn? Are you looking for some model of faith and belief that everyone can agree on? Are you looking for a level of certainty in religion that no one could say it's false? What would it take for you to put your complete faith and trust in a specific belief system?

[brainburn]

My response is almost the opposite because I'm saying 'stop looking for reliable spiritual experiences because there is no such thing.' Prayer and spiritual experiences play an important role, but it's not to tell us which faith system is true. Our hearts are far too deceptive and prone to persuasion.

 Ah, well. Then we could walk through what you might suggest proves any particular faith system.

What exactly are you looking for, brainburn? Are you looking for some model of faith and belief that everyone can agree on? Are you looking for a level of certainty in religion that no one could say it's false? What would it take for you to put your complete faith and trust in a specific belief system?

I'm looking for a solution to the mystery of life. I'm not sure what it would take, but I can recognize what doesn't make the cut.

But hey! As long as you're willing to talk, let's analyze what convinces you of your faith system. It's best if we walk through it step by step... starting with all necessary premises explained before hand. Sound good?

[Akboy]

I'm looking for a solution to the mystery of life. I'm not sure what it would take, but I can recognize what doesn't make the cut.

The Bible already gives you the solution. Why isn't it enough? God revealed Himself in Christ who died and came back to life, which is supported by historical and logical data. Are you saying that doesn't make the cut?

 

Have you read any in depth bible studies or theology books? There have been plenty of books written on faith systems, so why should we rehash what they've already explained in depth?

 

The bigger question is if you're willing to submit to a faith system that you don't immediately understand or agree with. If all this 'looking for a solution' is you just demanding God and faith must fit within your narrow definition of 'making the cut,' then you'll never find anything beyond yourself. You've wrote many posts asking others how they can trust in spiritual experiences without explaining why those experiences are reliable. But you're making the same mistake. You're putting so much faith in your logic and judgment without explaining why human logic and judgment is reliable.

[mfbukowski]

I understand what you mean to say... but how do you know that ALL communication with God is telepathic, experience-to-experience communication?

 

That sounds like an objective statement of fact. Do you mean to say it that way? If you do, are you going to provide the logical argument for why that is objective true?

Define objective

[brainburn]

Define objective

We don't need to get into semantics... the question, "how do you know that ALL communication with God is telepathic, experience-to-experience communication?" works well enough.

[brainburn]

I'm not trying to dodge anything, by the way. I just think that what I mean by "objective" was sufficiently expressed in the first question I reposted.