Jump to content

The role of justification in forming beliefs

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

I wish I could read more open opinions though.  Any of us is capable of original thought.   Once in a while I quote from the Bible.  I never quote other men because I never read other mens' work.  I don't base my ideas on the work of others.  I use a different source. 


It is my belief that the unified field that Einstein sought will be found as soon as science has an awakening to the reality of the subtle, non-physical realms.  Not before.

See, this is where I see problems.

The bible comes through the mouths of real, inspired, human beings. Does God speak every word? Do you trust men enough to believe they " got it right"? Even with contradictions, etc?

And also science. Have you enough understanding of Einstein to understand what a "non physical realm"might be, and how it works?

You can tell me what you believe and I can do the same, but if neither of us accepts any of the points, why bother?

You "wish you could read more open opinions, " but then say "I never quote other men because I never read other mens' work. " 

Sorry I am not understanding

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Jakob42 said:

Instead of quoting others can you write your own original thoughts on some aspect of spirituality? 

Of course but I think I can justify mine though the philosophies of men,  yet as always subject to God's confirmation "in the gut/heart/ still small voice/ Holy Spirit/conscience.".. there has to more- Oh! Light of Christ!

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Jakob42 said:

Are we to think then that we may not dare to say anything unless we can authenticate it by citing the works of others who came before?  Can we make a claim if there are no Biblical passages which confirm it?  Why not?  Not much of an achievement.  Since I was in school I wondered why we accord such importance to the writings of men who lived a long, long, time ago.  I thought "can't a man who lives today have anything to say?" and "Does the mere passage of time confirm correctness to an ancient Greek philosopher?"   Does anyone dare to disagree with them?  If not, why not? 

You cite the Holy Spirit.  I agree except the title is too vague.  I would rather put a name to the Spirit.  It is the Light of the Christ which influences man to use his wits and achieve.   We cannot grow spiritually if we merely accept and obey.  We have to dare to reach out for more. 


I will try to satisfy your requirement though.  Just for the sake of being cooperative.  If you will be good enough to provide me a quote and a reference by anyone at all then I will look it up and comment on it.  It might be fun for both of us.   Care to try again?


Thanks  for your patience...

It won't work.  

But if you want to knock yourself out, be my guest!

These are the necessary philosophical views to understand philosophically how mankind can "hear God", one way to communicate with secularists.   I know you don't listen to "men" but I like to help philosophy types to turn them toward the LDS church.

In fact I think it is my duty to do my best in this area.   So this explains some serious problems with Everyman's conceptions of "Hearing God's voice" yet of course that is not mentioned anywhere.

Have fun!   https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/


Link to comment
8 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

"Does the mere passage of time confirm correctness to an ancient Greek philosopher?"   Does anyone dare to disagree with them?  If not, why not? 


No ancient philosophers are taken seriously anymore except for their brilliance in recognizing topics which have been discussed for 2500 years, though now of course what they thought is pretty irrelevant.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

"Knock yourself out.  Be my guest" indicates a disdainful attitude towards others.  It is hardly the way to "turn men towards the LDS chruch".   But you are wrong in your assumption that I do not listen to other men.  I do indeed.  I simply rebel against their insistance that I conform to their standards of investigative procedures.  To wit:  The reference is published by the Stanford University.  Were I a student enrolled in that institution I would be bound by their procedural rules.  I am not however.  Further I have no interest in convincing others of the veracity of my claims.  


Forgive me for drawing a parallel between your stance and that of the religious authorities of Jos. Smith's day.  He was widely condemned by scholastic and religious authority because he dared to speak his truth.  If he walked into Stanford today and told the established authority that he had found some (durable) plates upon which was inscribed a story of middle easterners migrating by sea to the new world long,long before such things were though to be possible he would have been rejected out of hand.  You do the same to me. 


Likewise, the Great Master soul, Jesus, who while in the desert finally passed the last test and became the Christ on Earth, commonly angered the Jewish authorities of the day who claimed he had no authority to speak as he does and that only we, with our prescribed methods.  In other words the authority of Jesus' day and the authority of our day are the same.  They both insist that only products of their "systems" may speak with authority in matters of our spiritual lives.   Do you see?  That a man might be correct is irrelevant to authority.  They demand compliance and acquiescence to their authority. 


Again... nothing in your reference has anything to do with the mechanics of our spiritual lives. If you care to provide me some reference that really does speak of the greater realities then I will be able to respond to it.  


You may also provide me references from the LDS teachings as well.  I will happily respond to them but please, do not expect me to provide justifications based on the work of others.  I could produce some references but you would not accept them because they originate from sources which long predate Christianity.  I have another source too. It is my own past life memories spend working in related areas.   Neither Stanford nor any Christian church would even consider taking those seriously.  


Jesus was rejected.   Jos. Smith was rejected too.  In any time established authority will reject anyone who dares to put forth knowledge without linking such knowledge to "approved" sources.   That is the way human beings are...


Lastly... I do not equate myself to Jesus or Smith.  I use them as examples only.  Both of them, had they lived today, would no doubt be rejected by Stanford.


Thanks for reading...   More than fifty years ago I joined the LDS church then left after one year.  I found their requirements for belief to be too limiting.   Yes, believe this.  No.  Don't believe that and all based on texts that, no doubt, Stanford would reject as being unreliable because they were not submitted using standard, accepted scientific methods.


In the physical world of science it is right and proper for students to follow the rules indicated in your reference.  In matters of spirituality however all we have are various religious writings.  You read what I say but you respond as though I am engaging in philosophical discourse and must, therefore, conform to Stanford's rules.  Which, by the way, are impossible because they require I submit for consideration only those things which are written about by others.  Please  allow me to say to you that no Greek philosopher ever had anything to say about the structure of the Earth's heavens or about the time flow differential within them or about the methods through which a human being is connected to them as he lives on Earth.  

All that is is an ENCYCLOPEDIA of contemporary philosophy, a summary of what is happening EVERYWHERE in papers around the world.

I had no intention to bring you back to LDS thinking, but responded because I hoped you might see the parallels between LDS teachings, yours, and LDS teachings 

I was wrong.

All my best!

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

Just a quick question for you.  If either Jesus or Jos. Smith presented their bodies of work to Stanford would they have been rejected because of their failure to conform to the University rules?  Yes.  They would have.  I wonder why, then, a strong proponent of the LDS church like yourself seems to insist that I accept Stanford as an accepted authority, that I obey them in order for you to accept what I say?  Not logical amigo.

I neither said nor intended to offend you.

Stanford wrote the summary of the work, and did not author it.

It's like blaming Britain for something in the ENCYCLOPEDIA Britanica

Sorry for the misunderstanding 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

It is not good to approach spirituality in the same way as we do temporal disciplines.  The two don't exactly mesh very well.


Thanks for the nice chat even though not much was accomplished.  


Blessings to you,  Jakob.  

I certainly agree with all these statements!! 

All my best, and I can see you know the Lord and blessings to you as well!

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

Thanks for the nice chat even though not much was accomplished.  

You might like this, but you probably already know it


Link to comment
8 hours ago, Jakob42 said:

Yes.   The Hindus, like the Muslims, the Jews and the Christians and all the rest, construct their religion around particular cultures in which the norms of the times.  They endure.  Why?  Because we humans are not all of the same spiritual age.  Human souls were not all created at once.   If they were then humanity would all be at the same level now.  We are not.  Of all the religions in the  world only those which come to us from India speak of such things.  Christians apparently think that the human soul is created and is a part of, subordinate to, the body and personality.  They err greatly in this.  New souls are born all the time but this is in the Earth's heavens and has nothing to do with physical conception.   There are great spiritual variations among men.   It depends on the age of the soul which is sometimes called the overself.  At any given time most of humanity is very junior and this is the reason religions endure.  They are needed by young souls who need what they have to offer.  Elder souls though have learned and are capable of inding their own way through the mazes into whcih we are thrown. 


I was born to a Christian tradition but my heritage is Jewish.  My interest in religions is academic only.  In truth I consider them all to be the same except for externals.  The LDS church is more like ancient Judaism than it is with other Christian rites.  The use of temples for ordinances bears a chilling resemblance to times far distant.   It's actually quite comforting.  we humans need these kinds of links to our distant past.  In this way we find God.  Nothing wrong with that except as soon as we join one we find ourselves bound by it's edicts and thus, in a sense, limited, separated from other men.  Then we try our best to convince others to join in our tradition.  This saves us from having to give credence to theirs.   Religions bring consequences.  They separate men.  


The best way to find God is to do so outside, away from any dogmatic approach.   In my old age this serves me well.  From where I stand I can look at all religions and find God now through one of them but by looking around each and discovering what is left.  If we were to erase all religions from the planet God and man would still be there.  What then? 

It's curious but true that many of the original disciples, including Judas and his brothers, were literate.  Peter was not but some were.  After Jesus left his external mission behind the record keeping began.  In those days, because of the Roman influence, local languages were not used much for writing.  Greek was the scholarly tongue that all authorities found acceptable.  Thus the first of the New testament was recorded in Greek.  The curious thing is that translating the cryllic alphabe tto the Latin one is fraught with opportunities for errors.  Like today the two are very different.  Literal translations are not easy.  I know.  I live part of each year in Ukraine among both Ukrainian and Russian speaking citizens.  I own property in the city of Kherson, UA.  Since covid of course I haven't been there.  No matter. 


In old Greek Jesus is referred to as being "a son of God".   This was changed in translation to "the son of God" and later to "the only son of God".  Here is the great difficulty of cultures.   Truths are fluid.  They change all the time.  Any Christian today will say that jesus is the Son of God not a son of God.  In truth we are all sons and daughters of God and Jesus is our brother.   Jesus never intended himself to be elevated to God status.  We men did that.  But this is the way humanity is.  We see through filters.  Jesus himself has said "where I go ye shall follow".  This means that we will eventually elevate ourselves and be on parity with other advanced souls.  We are not destined to remain young but to grow and achieve.  This is the meaning of the idea of becoming god like.  The only difference between a man on Earth today and the master Jesus is time and experience.   Both are sons of God.  We respect out older brother, not worship him unless we are too young to understand.


Each man has his own access.  Knowing this is the reason I care not for the ideas of other men.  I write my own ideas which, to me, are just as legitimate as anyone else's.   And why not?   Titles and degrees mean nothing to me.  They are all "of the Earth".

Thanks for reading....    See you when we return to spirit. 


Thanks for the chat...

Thanks for this, I know it was for someone else, but thinking many derived tons from reading what you've said. The board is a great experience to learn from those from all over the world and backgrounds. :)

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Jakob42 said:

In spite of what I wrote I have the greatest interest and respect for the LDS church.  Sure, I could pick and complain about some of the rules for living which so often make no sense but those result from the involvement of men, not of God.  


Inspiration comes from God.  Religions come from man.

That's what I'm talking about. :)

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...