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

[brainburn]

Could you give a few brief examples of some of the many things that "make the cut"?

What do you mean by "self-evident"?

It would help if you could give an example of a logical truth.

I have no problem with logic. I've brought up logic like 'If A = B and B = C, then A must = C' is philosophical discussions. At the same time, human logic has it's limit. God has said the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God. So using logic is fine, but if you're trying to "prove" which faith is right, then you're probably getting into foolish "wisdom."

Do you see how logic-based philosophers can fall into the same circular reasoning pattern you're pointing out in experience-based philosophers?

If you simply mean to point out that logic has limits, I totally agree. Logic doesn't get us very far trying to solve these tremendous mysteries that make up the human condition.

So, if we don't logically "prove" which faith is true, how do we end up with one faith system over another?

And as far as things that "make the cut" or "prove a faith system"... I don't know.

Does a spiritual experience in a monastery prove that faith system? LDS temple? FLDS temple? Mosque? Synagogue? Ayahuasca tent?

Does being healed by a Catholic priest prove that faith system? Your youth pastor? Your shaman? Native American medicine man? Healed by magic crystals, astrology, chakra alignment, all kinds of "energy" techniques?

Does the beauty of existence prove the Christian God's handiwork? The Muslim god? The mormon god? A polytheistic system? A more primitive "Mother Nature" spirit?

Every faith system has their list of "impossible events" and miracles. The followers all have powerful stories about how it's transformed their lives and awakened them to spiritual power.

For every story or argument that "proves" a particular faith system, there's a million others that "prove" a different faith system, just with different names, places, and miracles.

My primary contention in order to make sense of all this supernatural stuff, we have to impose a particular paradigm structure or particular faith system onto reality to explain our experiences. The problem is that all the methods that sort out the contradicting spiritual paradigms are themselves derived from certain paradigms and not others. It's clearly begging the question. It answers the question by assuming the question has already been answered.

Say I have never had a spiritual experience before and don't believe in any particular faith system. In no particular order, I have spiritual experience reading the BOM and I also have a spiritual experience reading the Koran. How can I tell to what degree each experience confirms the truth of either faith system if I don't already have any reason to accept any one faith system is more true than another?

Edited April 30, 2014 by brainburn

[brainburn]

This is life eternal that you may know the one true God and the Christ whom he hath sent. so not so mysterious.

It might be an inversion but it is closer my thinking.

In the sciences we can only deal with the natural. By their works ye shall know them.

I appreciate your response, but let me try one more time to walk you through it.

Your spiritual paradigm is not the only spiritual paradigm. Idea you've offered like "this life is eternal", that your version of God and Christ are real, are all derived from your particular spiritual paradigm.

Given that I have yet to accept a spiritual paradigm that isn't completely and absolutely mysterious, in my mind, the paradigm you offered is in competition with the other spiritual paradigms that tell different stories about reality and Gods and eternity...

In this context of competing paradigms, I'm looking for a method to sort them out. The problem is that the only methods for sorting out all these paradigms are derived from the truth of some paradigms and not others. In other words, I have to beg the question to answer the question. Does that make sense?

If I'm trying to tell whether this spiritual experience means paradigm X is true or this spiritual experience means paradigm Y is true and my answer is:

Because paradigm X is true, your spiritual experience that led you to paradigm X is correct....

Why would I ask that original question if I already "knew" paradigm X was true?

You need to take a step back and ask how did I come to accept paradigm X instead of Y without circularly relying on one being true and the other not so true before the question is answered.

[Ahab]

I do like explaining things. But we're all here because it suits us, I suppose. I'm really getting a lot out of these conversations. It's helping me grow.

I see your concern, but I did try to pick up on it. I think I asked him to explain it twice. This kind of idea needs a bit more support because I don't understand why the distinction needs to be made. When I say "supernatural", I don't necessarily need to separate the supernatural from the natural in substance, only in function. Also, separate in that we know natural things exist and supernatural things are simply possible. They could be two points on the same spectrum, but the fact that one is fundamentally mysterious and the other not so much is what makes a supernatural correspondence theory possible.

But if you'd like to talk! I'd be really interested in a explanation as to what convinces you there is nothing supernatural. I would venture a guess that you don't mean this in an objective sense, even though you phrase it absolutely as if you mean to say that anything supernatural is impossible?

Simply that everything is natural, including God.

There is nothing superior to or above what is natural, and nature is both temporal and eternal even though not always at the same time.

I could be wrong, but if you don't mean to say there is objectively nothing supernatural, it's a bit difficult to tell what you mean.

I hope you know what I mean now.

I'm really grateful. Maybe if we talk he could see that I'm actually not that difficult to talk to :]

I don't mind talking to you but since I text type on a small device with only one big finger I don't usually say a whole lot at one time.

[brainburn]

Simply that everything is natural, including God.

There is nothing superior to or above what is natural, and nature is both temporal and eternal even though not always at the same time.

I hope you know what I mean now.

I don't mind talking to you but since I text type on a small device with only one big finger I don't usually say a whole lot at one time.

No problem lol. I type most of my responses on my phone, too.

So, here's where I'm still getting confused...

You kinda just repeated the same statement. If it's not a statement about objective reality, then how is relevant to my argument? Is it meant to change anything about my reasoning?

Edited April 30, 2014 by brainburn

[Sidney Rigdon]

I would like to humbly admit that I am quite skilled at discerning the difference between a real and fake conversion. When I joined the Baptist church, I knew I could not be admitted without an experience: so I made up one to suit the purpose, but it was all made up, and was of no use.

[Guest]

To the thread title, what determines the difference between true or false conversion. Three things...time, trials and truth and with truth, I mean "To thine own self be true".

Edited May 23, 2014 by Pa Pa