Gray Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 16 hours ago, snowflake said: And how would one come to that consensus? How could you really prove he existed? Multiple attestation and other historical criteria. There is abundant evidence for Jesus' existence, more so than many other historical figures.
Gray Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 9 hours ago, JLHPROF said: If the veil is parted and a messenger actually is present (not in the mind or spirit, i.e. A visitation, not a vision) I don't see how that can be subject to interpretation. And that does happen. That isn't the experience for the vast majority of people who get revelation. But if you're talking about an experience that is outside of the mind, then nothing like that has ever been confirmed to occur.
Gray Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: "These kind of questions"? What kind of questions do you THINK they are?? These questions are nothing like finding out the time of day- NOTHING The problem is that nothing OTHER THAN subjective revelation can help you with subjective issues on how to live your life. The problem is thinking these are NOT subjective issues in the first place and that subjective beliefs can be justified through any other means than subjective feelings. One does not perform scientific experiments to find a spouse or figure out what one finds to be immoral or for whom to vote. One does not find the meaning and purpose of one's life in a test tube or by reading an oscilloscope or by studying history. I'm referring to the question of which is the only church with God's authority. That doesn't work - revelation will point to a thousand "only churches" with God's authority. Personal revelation can tell you which church might be right for you, though.
Gray Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: What is your evidence that evidence is relevant to internal experience? It's relevant if he's trying to use internal experiences to tell him something objective about the external world that applies to everyone.
Gray Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Uh There are many ways to teach math, some work better than others for individuals. This is not an objective question- how could a worshiper of "existence" NOT understand that? If you think there is one true and authorized church of God, obviously there can only be one, not two or seven one and only authorized churches of God. It's not a subjective question, which is why revelation doesn't work here. Revelation is subjective, it will give you subjective answers to subjective questions and subjective answers to objective questions.
Gray Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 7 hours ago, mfbukowski said: HUH? I agree but this contradicts all you have been saying looking for objective verification of subjective experience. How can I get evidence of what you actually dreamed last night? You can only tell me subjectively what your subjective experience was. I'm saying revelation is a subjective experience. But the question of the one and only true church is not a question that lends itself to subjectivity. It's like trying to use revelation to get the height in meters of Mount Everest. Wrong tool of the job.
mfbukowski Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Gray said: I'm referring to the question of which is the only church with God's authority. That doesn't work - revelation will point to a thousand "only churches" with God's authority. Personal revelation can tell you which church might be right for you, though. Gods authority is not objective- it is in the eye of the one who gives him the authority and besides after giving Him authority how do you know what his will is anyway without revelation? This seems like a very weird comment to make for one who does not believe in a personal God at all! Did you know some people don't think God exists? That maybe he has no authority? How do you think people decide which church has authority if not by revelation or their gut? Who told you God is not a person? How did you get that idea? How do you decide which church has or does not have authority then? What is your authority for the above comment if not your personal feelings? Edited April 4, 2017 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 39 minutes ago, Gray said: I'm saying revelation is a subjective experience. But the question of the one and only true church is not a question that lends itself to subjectivity. It's like trying to use revelation to get the height in meters of Mount Everest. Wrong tool of the job. This assumes God exists objectively and you do not believe that You are assuming that one could in principle go out in a spaceship and find out how tall God is with a tape measure. You do not even believe he exists as a person- why would you argue that way? 1
mfbukowski Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Gray said: If you think there is one true and authorized church of God, obviously there can only be one, not two or seven one and only authorized churches of God. It's not a subjective question, which is why revelation doesn't work here. Revelation is subjective, it will give you subjective answers to subjective questions and subjective answers to objective questions. Not so. If you believe in evolution and that man was supposed to evolve but there were many pathways for him to do so, what is the correct path? (just an example for many paths to one goal) Was there only one way to achieve space travel? Did nematodes have to exist so that man could get to Mars? There was no other way? Do you have to drive by my house to get to Boise? (I live in California) For me I do, but that not exactly be the best path for you- objectively What was the one true path to achieving the theory of relativity? What if Einstein never existed? My point is that there are NO objective religious questions or answers. Edited April 4, 2017 by mfbukowski
Ahab Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 15 hours ago, Mars said: i agree with Gray. Unfortunate, because Gray thinks you really can't know for sure, and nobody else can either. So your agreement with Gray means you agree that you can not know. 15 hours ago, Mars said: i am confident in my spiritual experiences. i "know" it's true, so to speak. but i can't transfer that knowledge. If you knew, as I do, you could transfer your knowledge by simply stating what it is you do know. Regardless of whether or not Gray or anyone else believed you. 15 hours ago, Mars said: i can only invite others to try it and let them decide for themselves. in that sense, no one can know for sure. Unfortunate, again, that you believe that. 15 hours ago, Mars said: you can't know without subscribing to it. in normal non-religious talk, that means i can't know for sure. No, in normal non-religious talk that means you can't know without knowing, which means you can know as lon as you know. 15 hours ago, Mars said: i can't know without commitment and sacrifice and investment. which is what a lot of people want... why invest in something you might be wrong about? and yet, if any man do the Father's will, he will know of the doctrine. So do you know or don't you. It seems that I am getting mixed messages from you. 15 hours ago, Mars said: maybe i misunderstood the both of you. my apologies if so! Yeah, okay, maybe I misunderstood you too and my apologies too if so.
Gray Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Gods authority is not objective- it is in the eye of the one who gives him the authority and besides after giving Him authority how do you know what his will is anyway without revelation? This seems like a very weird comment to make for one who does not believe in a personal God at all! Did you know some people don't think God exists? That maybe he has no authority? How do you think people decide which church has authority if not by revelation or their gut? Who told you God is not a person? How did you get that idea? How do you decide which church has or does not have authority then? What is your authority for the above comment if not your personal feelings? If there is a God who has given his church his authority, then that's an objective question. Either God has authorized the LDS church to do work in his name, or he has not, yes? It doesn't matter even if you reject God, either God has done this or he has not. If it's really important for you to try to decide which church has authority, you'll have to guess. There is no way to know. That's the best anyone can do, short of God appearing to everyone on earth and settling the matter once and for all. I believe that's called "faith"? The authority question isn't important to me, and I'm all about the subjectivity of religious worship and spirituality, even if I believe in an objective God. My theology is subjective.
Ahab Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 10 hours ago, JLHPROF said: If the veil is parted and a messenger actually is present (not in the mind or spirit, i.e. A visitation, not a vision) I don't see how that can be subject to interpretation. And that does happen. Everything is subject to interpretation. You could think that messenger was a space alien and had nothing to do with God. Or you could think that messenger actually was a messenger from God. It would be up to you to determine how to interpret that situation.
mfbukowski Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: It's relevant if he's trying to use internal experiences to tell him something objective about the external world that applies to everyone. It's something INTERNAL that applies to everyone INTERNALLY Everyone wants internal peace. Religion is about internal peace- nothing more nothing less. Beliefs are inside us- where else to beliefs exist?
mfbukowski Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 10 hours ago, JLHPROF said: If the veil is parted and a messenger actually is present (not in the mind or spirit, i.e. A visitation, not a vision) I don't see how that can be subject to interpretation. And that does happen. The point is how can you know the difference? Of course it happens. Dreams ARE "real" too when you are experiencing them though! THAT is the point- reality itself includes dreams and visions- dreams and visions are real. How do you know that a mirage is not "real water" if you cannot move toward it and stick your finger in the mirage? All we have are our perceptions
Ahab Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 12 hours ago, Gray said: Even if God actually speaks, the experience of revelation is subjective. Yes and there is nothing wrong with that. Everything is subjective. Even what someone thinks is objective. 1
mfbukowski Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Gray said: If there is a God who has given his church his authority, then that's an objective question. Either God has authorized the LDS church to do work in his name, or he has not, yes? It doesn't matter even if you reject God, either God has done this or he has not. If it's really important for you to try to decide which church has authority, you'll have to guess. There is no way to know. That's the best anyone can do, short of God appearing to everyone on earth and settling the matter once and for all. I believe that's called "faith"? The authority question isn't important to me, and I'm all about the subjectivity of religious worship and spirituality, even if I believe in an objective God. My theology is subjective. And so is everyone else's. Sorry to put it this way but you are confusing ontology with epistemology. The question of what God has done objectively is irrelevant to humanity if we cannot know what he has done. It has no significance in our lives It is like saying that if Sargon Xpater on the planet Org which is 1 million light years from earth, has commanded that all in the universe obey him or he will destroy the universe, we are up the creek anyway because his objectively real pronouncement will fall on deaf human ears. He will pull the trigger or maybe already has and we will know in 1 million years. God is irrelevant to humans if he cannot communicate with us. And the only way God communicates is through revelation and what beliefs seem to be "right" to us. That is called "subjective experience". Yes it would be simpler if he just appeared to everyone and told us what he wants, but that would be what LDS call "Satan's plan". "Do what I say or else!" The very suggestion of that assumption - that we are here to walk by faith- indicates that direct objective communication is NOT in the picture except perhaps to a few messengers who we have to accept by faith. Regardless of His objectivity the only way we can KNOW God is subjectively and that totally cancels out his objective existence. Feelings. That's all we got by the very presupposition in the paradigm that we "walk by faith". Call it whatever you like - that is semantics. The bottom line is that it must be subjective if it is rooted in faith. The issue goes to the consistency of the paradigm If we walk by faith, communication with God has to be subjective and therefore everything we know about God has to be confirmed by faith and is subjective History is irrelevant, science is irrelevant in the very paradigm of walking by faith, itself. It is built into the system. How many more times do I have to say it?? Edited April 4, 2017 by mfbukowski 2
Erika Henderson Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 8 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Exactly. Thanks mfbukowski! btw...my maiden name was Latschkowski! maybe we are related?
JLHPROF Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Mars said: absolutely it does. and it makes sure knowledge. but still can't be transferred. and that's what gray means when he says "no one can know for sure." insofar as that what he means, i agree with him. If that was what he meant I would agree, but I'm not so sure it is. Of course "sure knowledge" revelations are still personal to those who receive them and not transferrable to others. That's just common sense. 1 hour ago, Gray said: That isn't the experience for the vast majority of people who get revelation. But if you're talking about an experience that is outside of the mind, then nothing like that has ever been confirmed to occur. Agreed, it's not the case for most. However, I completely disagree when you say "an experience that is outside of the mind, then nothing like that has ever been confirmed to occur". When the angel presented the plates to the 3 witnesses they physically handled the plates, turned the leaves, etc. When Jacob "wrestled" with the Lord it was real enough that he dislocated a joint. When John the Baptist ordained Joseph and Oliver he placed his hands on their heads, just as we do when we ordain. When the Brother of Jared picked up the stones the finger of the Lord touched they were either actually glowing or they weren't. When Moses parted the Red Sea the ground was either dry or it wasn't. When Mary was taken away in the spirit and came back pregnant there was nothing inside her mind about that pregnancy. These physical manifestations of God's power and existence represent a sure knowledge of the existence of God. We either believe the people that record these events or we don't. But they were not inside the mind. D&C 129 wouldn't be necessary if every revelation was internal. Now, you can argue that these events were illusory, and they only perceived a physical presence in their minds, but I see no evidence of that in their accounts that would lead me to believe these things were all internal. If you are going to argue that we cannot tell the difference between dream and reality that's an entirely different issue with its own set of problems. Edited April 4, 2017 by JLHPROF
JLHPROF Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 8 hours ago, mfbukowski said: How would one tell the difference between a visitation and a vision?? Physicality would be the most likely. (D&C 129). 21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: The point is how can you know the difference? Of course it happens. Dreams ARE "real" too when you are experiencing them though! THAT is the point- reality itself includes dreams and visions- dreams and visions are real. How do you know that a mirage is not "real water" if you cannot move toward it and stick your finger in the mirage? All we have are our perceptions Philosophizing away reality is a fun exercise but serves little purpose. If it is impossible to determine reality then our very existence could be the dream of some flying spaghetti monster in the Andromeda galaxy. And that galaxy may only exist in a child's imagination on a plain of pure energy. At some point, there is real and there is dream. And of course perception matters, but I think it is a big stretch if you "stick your finger in the mirage" and discover it is real water to claim that the existence of that water remains subjective.
Erika Henderson Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Feelings. That's all we got by the very presupposition in the paradigm that we "walk by faith". Call it whatever you like - that is semantics. The bottom line is that it must be subjective if it is rooted in faith. The issue goes to the consistency of the paradigm I have often thought about why we must live by faith on this earth. How often I have wished God would come with His Chariot across the sky and say, "And now a word from your Creator." We would know for sure then. I came to realize that in living by faith and 'not knowing' for sure, God can see what is in our hearts. If we were just being good for the big reward or because of fear of punishment, God could not see what's truly in our hearts. Like what we would really do, if there was no reward or punishment.
Ahab Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: How many more times do I have to say it?? Please keep saying it but not all at once. The more you say it the more it might help someone. Repetition of good ideas is something even our Father approves of. Who knows, maybe eventually more and more people will begin to catch on. 1
JLHPROF Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 5 minutes ago, Erika Henderson said: I have often thought about why we must live by faith on this earth. How often I have wished God would come with His Chariot across the sky and say, "And now a word from your Creator." We would know for sure then. I came to realize that in living by faith and 'not knowing' for sure, God can see what is in our hearts. If we were just being good for the big reward or because of fear of punishment, God could not see what's truly in our hearts. Like what we would really do, if there was no reward or punishment. I don't believe the reward/punishment model. It is natural consequence of the people we become that we have to worry about. 1
hope_for_things Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: And so is everyone else's. Sorry to put it this way but you are confusing ontology with epistemology. The question of what God has done objectively is irrelevant to humanity if we cannot know what he has done. It has no significance in our lives It is like saying that if Sargon Xpater on the planet Org which is 1 million light years from earth, has commanded that all in the universe obey him or he will destroy the universe, we are up the creek anyway because his objectively real pronouncement will fall on deaf human ears. He will pull the trigger or maybe already has and we will know in 1 million years. God is irrelevant to humans if he cannot communicate with us. And the only way God communicates is through revelation and what beliefs seem to be "right" to us. That is called "subjective experience". Yes it would be simpler if he just appeared to everyone and told us what he wants, but that would be what LDS call "Satan's plan". "Do what I say or else!" The very suggestion of that assumption - that we are here to walk by faith- indicates that direct objective communication is NOT in the picture except perhaps to a few messengers who we have to accept by faith. Regardless of His objectivity the only way we can KNOW God is subjectively and that totally cancels out his objective existence. Feelings. That's all we got by the very presupposition in the paradigm that we "walk by faith". Call it whatever you like - that is semantics. The bottom line is that it must be subjective if it is rooted in faith. The issue goes to the consistency of the paradigm I was just learning about some studies around people that believe in ghosts and the paranormal that I think is similar to what you're saying. The people who believe in ghosts are more likely to experience phenomena that confirm that belief. Confirmation bias is at work here. Do I think their experiences are actually, "real" or not, I would say that they are real. Because even though we can't measure the phenomena scientifically, we can measure the responses that the person is experiencing, and those responses (increased heart rate, perspiration, fainting, fear, etc) are real and measurable for those persons. I find this similar to the questions about God and religion. I think what people experience is real to them and all of what they experience can be measured and has a real impact on the lives of people. This doesn't however mean that we can objectively say that we know God exists or that religions have power and authority from any divine source. I don't think there is any evidence to objectively make that kind of argument. However, this doesn't mean that God isn't real, or that religion isn't real. Its real for the people that believe it.
Ahab Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: At some point, there is real and there is dream. And of course perception matters, but I think it is a big stretch if you "stick your finger in the mirage" and discover it is real water to claim that the existence of that water remains subjective. Reality is still determined subjectively, though. Say for example that someone else were to see you "stick your finger in the mirage" (or what that person perceived could be a mirage). When does what might be a mirage become reality for that person? And for some other person? You can say you know something as much as you want, and you might even really know it, but all anyone else is going to hear is you saying you really know it. Even when they also know what you know.
JLHPROF Posted April 4, 2017 Posted April 4, 2017 4 minutes ago, Ahab said: Reality is still determined subjectively, though. Say for example that someone else were to see you "stick your finger in the mirage" (or what that person perceived could be a mirage). When does what might be a mirage become reality for that person? And for some other person? You can say you know something as much as you want, and you might even really know it, but all anyone else is going to hear is you saying you really know it. Even when they also know what you know. Subjectivity to the observer is different than subjectivity to the receiver. What Joseph experienced in the grove wasn't subjective to him. But how I interpret what he said happened is subjective to me. And I happen to believe him.
Recommended Posts