RevTestament Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 3 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said: Good words, but I am giving a rep point because your points were "666". Now you can preced. Good man - didn't want me to be the man of the beast -- No worries there mate. He will be revealed in all his "glory" soon enough. 1
Bernard Gui Posted May 13, 2017 Author Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said: Other than ideas, sermons and cryptic passages in scripture, all that we know of him is everything we know of Jesus Christ. Which is a lot, as Christ himself put it..."all that I do I have seen the Father do", and that "if ye have seen me, ye have seen the Father". So all in all, we know a lot. Jesus Christ is the common thread that runs through every talk, every lesson, every prayer, every "Spiritual" experience and every inspiration that draws us unto Christ, his teaching, his Charity, his devotion and his love, would be the same if being taught of the Father. I wonder if we really know what that means. Knowing what the Father teaches helps, but there is so much more. Edited May 13, 2017 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted May 13, 2017 Author Posted May 13, 2017 On 5/11/2017 at 10:52 AM, Meadowchik said: I for one like the exercise of provisionally accepting a premise of knowledge sometimes, and then working it to its product. So, perhaps a useful separation would be 1. What is knowledge. and/or 2. How to treat, consider, or experiment on potential knowledge. Both questions, when actively worked upon, can work in concert. Interesting, but not much of a list of what we know.
Meadowchik Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Interesting, but not much of a list of what we know. We "know" our own experiences that we think or feel inform us about God and we know many have said and written much about God. Even in Mormonism, we know prophets have said much about God the Father including disparate doctrines, so God according to Mormonism really depends on when you ask. We, as humans at large, don't know much more than that about God. Edited May 13, 2017 by Meadowchik
Meadowchik Posted May 13, 2017 Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, DemonsAway said: I can relate to this to some extent. I can think of one person I know who is one of the most devout people I have ever met. He told me he has never felt anything he would call a spiritual experience. Maybe he has since he told me this, which was about a year ago and he's still a believer despite no experience. But it could fit with what you say, maybe he doesn't need it or he's not prepared for it, but it turns into a lot of what-if's. A problem I have with spiritual experiences is that an omniscient deity should know what each person needs to feel or experience to have some kind of confirmation. Especially someone who is honestly pursuing the truth through ways described in scripture, at least if we're talking Christian belief. The inconsistencies that arise I find very problematic to truthfulness. It's nice that some people feel they get this. But I think it's quite possible that there are other explanations. I agree that you only know your own experiences. But when we have a large group of people who are sharing similar experiences or no experience at all, and then we have this smaller percentage sharing more fantastic experiences, those people stick out like a sore thumb. A member can say that doesn't mean anything, but it does, it's a compilation of data and it is evidence. I've only had a few posts with you, but you do seem to have a way of relating to the non-believer. That's an asset and a good thing in my opinion. Thank you. I am an ex-mormon in the stage of transition out of belief in Mormonism, was a believer at the year's start. Because my belief in Mormonism is over, I'm trying to hold onto and even recover my beliefs in God and Christ but unattached from Mormonism. But before that, I've long enjoyed talking and thinking about all kinds of belief. I know what you mean about the compiled data, atleast I know it seems to undermine religious claims when those spiritual experiences are examined across religious identities. Edited May 13, 2017 by Meadowchik
Bernard Gui Posted May 13, 2017 Author Posted May 13, 2017 (edited) 15 hours ago, Meadowchik said: We "know" our own experiences that we think or feel inform us about God and we know many have said and written much about God. Even in Mormonism, we know prophets have said much about God the Father including disparate doctrines, so God according to Mormonism really depends on when you ask. We, as humans at large, don't know much more than that about God. Well, the OP was directed at Mormons who believe in God the Father asking what they know, so what do you know? Edited May 13, 2017 by Bernard Gui 1
mfbukowski Posted May 14, 2017 Posted May 14, 2017 (edited) 21 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Thank you. I am an ex-mormon in the stage of transition out of belief in Mormonism, was a believer at the year's start. Because my belief in Mormonism is over, I'm trying to hold onto and even recover my beliefs in God and Christ but unattached from Mormonism. But before that, I've long enjoyed talking and thinking about all kinds of belief. I know what you mean about the compiled data, atleast I know it seems to undermine religious claims when those spiritual experiences are examined across religious identities. RELIGION IS ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCES It is about why you do what you do, what is important to you, and what you find valuable in your life- it is not about other people or some objective reality that others can confirm for you, including scripture. Scripture is subject to your personal interpretation. Religion is about what is subjective and unique to you in your life. It is your world you are creating from matter unorganized as a god in embryo. The scriptures are to apply to YOUR life literally and metaphorically as is necessary as you liken them to yourself They are not about describing the world- they are about describing what you want to become. It is about what YOU need to believe to get closer to God- or even just have a meaning for your life. No one else's life- YOURS PS it's amazing how much a smiling face does to make you easier to relate to. Maybe I will try it Edited May 14, 2017 by mfbukowski
Meadowchik Posted May 14, 2017 Posted May 14, 2017 9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Well, the OP was directed at Mormons who believe in God the Father asking what they know, so what do you know? Sorry, but I thought I answered it. Carry on
Meadowchik Posted May 14, 2017 Posted May 14, 2017 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: RELIGION IS ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCES It is about why you do what you do, what is important to you, and what you find valuable in your life- it is not about other people or some objective reality that others can confirm for you, including scripture. Scripture is subject to your personal interpretation. Religion is about what is subjective and unique to you in your life. It is your world you are creating from matter unorganized as a god in embryo. The scriptures are to apply to YOUR life literally and metaphorically as is necessary as you liken them to yourself They are not about describing the world- they are about describing what you want to become. It is about what YOU need to believe to get closer to God- or even just have a meaning for your life. No one else's life- YOURS PS it's amazing how much a smiling face does to make you easier to relate to. Maybe I will try it My personal experiences are connected to some degree to everything in this world. Maybe it is just more important to me than it is you that the connection to power structures is based on healthy relationships and not just what I get out of it? My religion experience and my spirituality are indeed about becoming but it does not occur in a vacuum.
Bernard Gui Posted May 14, 2017 Author Posted May 14, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Sorry, but I thought I answered it. Carry on Your answer was about what "we" know. I don't know who "we" are. The question was, "What do you know?" Carrying on. Edited May 14, 2017 by Bernard Gui
Meadowchik Posted May 14, 2017 Posted May 14, 2017 22 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Your answer was about what "we" know. I don't know who "we" are. The question was, "What do you know?" Carrying on. Even as a TBM I preferred "I believe" over "I know" in spiritual matters. To me, it's more genuine and accurate. And btw I believe accuracy is more edifying and enlightening.
Bernard Gui Posted May 14, 2017 Author Posted May 14, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Even as a TBM I preferred "I believe" over "I know" in spiritual matters. To me, it's more genuine and accurate. And btw I believe accuracy is more edifying and enlightening. "We" will need to change "testimony meetings" to "opinion" meetings. "Brothers and sisters, I have a strong opinion that the Church is true.The time is now yours to share your opinions. " "Brother Gui, do you have an opinion about the Savior?" "I would like to express my opinion about tithing and answers to prayers." Edited May 14, 2017 by Bernard Gui 1
Meadowchik Posted May 14, 2017 Posted May 14, 2017 3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: "We" will need to change "testimony meetings" to "opinion" meetings. "Brothers and sisters, I have a strong opinion that the Church is true.The time is now yours to share your opinions. " "Brother Gui, do you have an opinion about the Savior?" "I would like to express my opinion about tithing and answers to prayers." Do you think opinion is the same as belief?
mfbukowski Posted May 14, 2017 Posted May 14, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Do you think opinion is the same as belief? Clearly there are 14 levels to opinion and 89.375 levels to belief all perfectly defined objectively and so there is little room for even discussing this issue. All these are objective facts. No chance any of this is semantics either obviously. And each of these 14x89.375 nuances make incredibly important differences in our lives. Edited May 14, 2017 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted May 14, 2017 Posted May 14, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: "We" will need to change "testimony meetings" to "opinion" meetings. "Brothers and sisters, I have a strong opinion that the Church is true.The time is now yours to share your opinions. " "Brother Gui, do you have an opinion about the Savior?" "I would like to express my opinion about tithing and answers to prayers." The only problem is we have to have a category for those who only believe they have an opinion or have an opinion about having a belief. And that only scratches the surface. In fact ever single Sunday of the year needs to be dedicated to its own nuance but even that will not cover all of them. And we can't leave anyone out because that would be cruel and they might be offended and leave the church. But there are levels of offense as well and some are more cruel than others so each of those levels needs definition as well. I mean cruelty alone could be unkindness, discomfort or rancor or resentment or proceed and advance into viciousness or malignity. If severe enough it might be even be brutishness or torture. I mean we have to get all of this correct or who knows what might happen. Edited May 14, 2017 by mfbukowski 1
Bernard Gui Posted May 14, 2017 Author Posted May 14, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Do you think opinion is the same as belief? Yes. Both are based on assumptions and experience. If I express an opinion I am making a statement about something I believe, not something I know. I have absolutely no problem when someone says "I believe......" For most situations that is the most honest expression. There may be good reasons for that belief. There are also times when I feel confident to say I know. Edited May 14, 2017 by Bernard Gui
mfbukowski Posted May 14, 2017 Posted May 14, 2017 3 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Do you think opinion is the same as belief? Clearly not. I never believe my opinions. And that is objectively true.
clarkgoble Posted May 15, 2017 Posted May 15, 2017 (edited) On 5/12/2017 at 4:21 PM, DemonsAway said: Yes, you only know your own experiences and you can't have any way of confirming someone else's, I agree there. Before anyone jumps on this, I understand that Mormons feel they only need to worry about their own experiences. It doesn't mean that others claims don't mean anything. I think if we're being honest and we care about truthfulness, another religion making the same claims does mean something and it does tell us something. Especially when it's involving multiply religions making the same claim. I think Mormons definitely view other people confirming their experiences as important. Thus in part Fast and Testimony meeting and the constant emphasis on witnesses. However if we have experiences sufficiently persuasive then people claiming contradictory experiences doesn't really say much. Much like a scientist familiar with the evidence for evolution isn't particularly shaken by "evidence" coming out of a young earth creation organization claiming dinosaurs in recent periods. Quote First I don't want to misrepresent Sam Harris or speak for him. I've seen quite a bit of his stuff and I know he doesn't care to be called an atheist and is an advocate for rational spirituality. But he's one of the more intelligent non-believers I've come across. I find the New Atheists deeply problematic philosophically. I think there are a lot of atheists making very strong arguments. The New Atheists and Harris in particular are not among them. If you're interesting over at The Partially Examined Life they did a study of them a while back. They're all atheists by the way. But they're also all philosophers and so look at these things quite critically. Edit: just noticed they have the podcast charged for. There is a 30 minute preview but not the full podcast. Too bad as it was quite a good one. Quote I just paraphrased his argument and he does go into more detail, but I don't think we need that detail to make the case here. I think he's hitting the nail on the head for why they did it and why they felt justified in doing it. We're talking about a faith that encourages killing infidels and that they'll get 72 virgins when they die. They wouldn't be crashing a plane into a building and throwing their lives away unless they thought they were going to be rewarded for it in the next life. You take the faith element out of it, that day would not have happened. And let me be clear, I'm not equating Islamic faith to LDS faith, or even Evangelical or Protestant faith to LDS faith. They all have their differences and different things they incite. I think among Harris' many failing is in not distinguishing the various types of Islam. That's not to say there aren't strong strains that support such things. There definitely are. But how much of that is due to religion and how much of the religion is shaped by deeper cultural, historic and political forces is the bigger question. Harris tends to put it all on the texts and I think that difficult to defend. Quote Well a lot of his expertise is in neuroscience, specifically many forms of psychology, so he's in a lot better position than most to make arguments. He certainly is. Unfortunately he doesn't do so. Quote To say it's something just of basic human psychology, IMO, is minimizing what the real problem is. If an atheist kills someone it's for a different reason. Yes it needs to be addressed but atheist killings happen few and far between anything faith driven. That is why faith needs to be at the forefront of the discussion. Well I think it's larger structures that arise out of basic human psychology. I don't want to say all communities are the same and that only individual psychology matters. That's certainly not the case. It's just that I tend to think the local community swamps the effect of textual religion. Or for that matter the local form of atheism. Edited May 15, 2017 by clarkgoble 1
Meadowchik Posted May 15, 2017 Posted May 15, 2017 11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Yes. Both are based on assumptions and experience. If I express an opinion I am making a statement about something I believe, not something I know. I have absolutely no problem when someone says "I believe......" For most situations that is the most honest expression. There may be good reasons for that belief. There are also times when I feel confident to say I know. I think it would be pretty cool actually to have more opining discussions at church, now that I think about it.
Meadowchik Posted May 15, 2017 Posted May 15, 2017 12 hours ago, mfbukowski said: The only problem is we have to have a category for those who only believe they have an opinion or have an opinion about having a belief. And that only scratches the surface. In fact ever single Sunday of the year needs to be dedicated to its own nuance but even that will not cover all of them. And we can't leave anyone out because that would be cruel and they might be offended and leave the church. But there are levels of offense as well and some are more cruel than others so each of those levels needs definition as well. I mean cruelty alone could be unkindness, discomfort or rancor or resentment or proceed and advance into viciousness or malignity. If severe enough it might be even be brutishness or torture. I mean we have to get all of this correct or who knows what might happen. Eww, thinking of others' feelings. Gross and scary! Don't do it!!! Phew, that was close. Saved, by false equivalencies and exaggeration.
Bernard Gui Posted May 16, 2017 Author Posted May 16, 2017 On 5/15/2017 at 4:10 AM, Meadowchik said: I think it would be pretty cool actually to have more opining discussions at church, now that I think about it. Maybe you can sneak into the HP Group meetings.
Meadowchik Posted May 16, 2017 Posted May 16, 2017 2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Maybe you can sneak into the HP Group meetings. Why would I?
Bernard Gui Posted May 16, 2017 Author Posted May 16, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said: Why would I? I guess I misunderstood that you wanted to have more opinion-based meetings at church. Plenty of opinions expressed in HP groups. When everyone is awake. If all the High Priests who slept in group meetings were laid end to end, they would be much more comfortable.. Edited May 16, 2017 by Bernard Gui
Meadowchik Posted May 16, 2017 Posted May 16, 2017 58 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I guess I misunderstood that you wanted to have more opinion-based meetings at church. Plenty of opinions expressed in HP groups. When everyone is awake. If all the High Priests who slept in group meetings were laid end to end, they would be much more comfortable.. It's a high priest joke, gotchya. I just know that there are plenty of thoughtful people in every group of church, so sneaking isn't necessary!
mfbukowski Posted May 16, 2017 Posted May 16, 2017 On 5/15/2017 at 4:13 AM, Meadowchik said: Eww, thinking of others' feelings. Gross and scary! Don't do it!!! Phew, that was close. Saved, by false equivalencies and exaggeration. Perhaps you missed the sarcasm?
Recommended Posts