The Bottom Line

[_Gunnar]

ironic...because your original claim of doing "everything right, as per Moroni's challenge" is clearly incorrect...because the challenge asks not if the church is true at all.

Isn't that a bit nitpicky subgenius? Are you implying that asking whether the Church is true is not a valid question to ask God about in prayer? Is it only legitmate to specifically ask God whether the Book of Mormon is true?

Additionally, a bit of irony in the validation you give your own "burning bosom" while still maintaining that it is wholly unreliable on such matters.

I must admit that there is a bit of a disconnect there, if Drifting is claiming confirmation of his present conviction via a process that he has determined to be unreliable. Perhaps he has a clearer, more understanble explanation of what he is really saying here? Or maybe it was only after, and because he got the "burning in the bosom" that the Book of Mormon was false, and compared that to those who got the opposite result that he decided that the method must be unreliable.

[_jo1952]

jo,

I hope Gunnar will listen to you, but given the attitude expressed so far I'm extremely dubious. I was once like that. I thought the whole thing was a joke until God changed me. Now that I know the Lord is real, I know that small and still voice and welcome it when it comes. But, if you are not fully committed to the Lord and are ready to dismiss that voice as delusion - you can get nowhere.

Tobin

Hi Tobin!

I am an incorrigible optimist.

Blessings,

jo

[_Drifting]

ironic...because your original claim of doing "everything right, as per Moroni's challenge" is clearly incorrect...because the challenge asks not if the church is true at all.

Isn't that a bit nitpicky subgenius? Are you implying that asking whether the Church is true is not a valid question to ask God about in prayer? Is it only legitmate to specifically ask God whether the Book of Mormon is true?

Additionally, a bit of irony in the validation you give your own "burning bosom" while still maintaining that it is wholly unreliable on such matters.

I must admit that there is a bit of a disconnect there, if Drifting is claiming confirmation of his present conviction via a process that he has determined to be unreliable. Perhaps he has a clearer, more understanble explanation of what he is really saying here? Or maybe it was only after, and because he got the "burning in the bosom" that the Book of Mormon was false, and compared that to those who got the opposite result that he decided that the method must be unreliable.

The example I gave of establishing the truth about the Church (and the Book of Mormon was connected with that) was the first proper time I had applied Moroni's promise to anything. Subsequent to that time it has become blatantly obvious that identifying and 'listening' to internal promptings is totally unreliable.
Subgenius is correct in raising therefore, the dilemma that I was then faced with. If the method is unreliable (a position I don't believe subgenius holds personally) then perhaps my learning of the falsity of the Church is also unreliable. I agree. Where we part company is that I then apply other methods of establishing wether the Church is true - like science, consistency, fact checking etc whereas subgenius/the Church would advise ignoring all that and continue applying for Moroni's promise until you get the 'right' answer.

[_Gunnar]

The example I gave of establishing the truth about the Church (and the Book of Mormon was connected with that) was the first proper time I had applied Moroni's promise to anything. Subsequent to that time it has become blatantly obvious that identifying and 'listening' to internal promptings is totally unreliable.
Subgenius is correct in raising therefore, the dilemma that I was then faced with. If the method is unreliable (a position I don't believe subgenius holds personally) then perhaps my learning of the falsity of the Church is also unreliable. I agree. Where we part company is that I then apply other methods of establishing wether the Church is true - like science, consistency, fact checking etc whereas subgenius/the Church would advise ignoring all that and continue applying for Moroni's promise until you get the 'right' answer.

Thanks for that explanation, Drifting! That pretty much confirms what I thought you meant! Obviously we are on the same page on this issue!

[_Themis]

Subgenius foolishly claimed in his first response to my OP that even if only one of these religious belief systems really were the "divinely revealed truth" its adherents claimed it to be, that would somehow be sufficient evidence of the reliability of that approach to discerning truth. This would be like giving someone a gold medal for marksmanship who only managed to hit the target once in several thousand attempts!

I noticed he went silent about it after it was shown he was not thinking correctly about what reliability is.

[_jo1952]

I noticed he went silent about it after it was shown he was not thinking correctly about what reliability is.

Meh.....Believers are willing to be fools for Christ. We are not willing to play foolish games with unbelievers. When you are sincere in seeking God, He will be there to open His arms to you. At that time you will no longer need to ask the same questions of the next victim you reel in which you keep asking over and over again. You will have received the answers from the Source Himself.

Blessings,

jo

[_Drifting]

I noticed he went silent about it after it was shown he was not thinking correctly about what reliability is.

Meh.....Believers are willing to be fools for Christ. We are not willing to play foolish games with unbelievers. When you are sincere in seeking God, He will be there to open His arms to you. At that time you will no longer need to ask the same questions of the next victim you reel in which you keep asking over and over again. You will have received the answers from the Source Himself.

Blessings,

jo

How can you tell the answers come from God rather than some supernatural imposter?

[_subgenius]

I noticed no one has dealt with the OP and his observations of the unreliable nature of the spiritual experience in giving one religious truth claims.

This seems to be the post that initiates the horrible and tragic erosion of reasoning which follows it goosestep.
The idea in the OP being considered is "the unreliable nature of the spiritual experience in giving one religious truth claims"
is, in itself, an irrational claim...and that irrationality is manifest by Drifting's example.
In fact the whole premise of the OP is absurd simply based on the simple fact that religious experiences are, by definition, subjective...so to propose some sort of revelation that these subjective experiences are not objective experiences is rather embarrassing to he who proposes it.
and the presence of various churches has no logical basis to support the OP...
the poster that mentions the target shooting is in error.
Hitting the bulls-eye while others miss is not an indictment against the arrow but rather against the archer.


Reliable
adjective
that may be relied on; dependable in achievement, accuracy, honesty, etc.: reliable information.
in other words, if it is reliable then you can put your trust in it.
This is not contrary to a religious truth derived from an experience. Reliable to every single human? perhaps not, but that is not a requirement for something to be considered and defined as reliable.

It's not lack of evidence, but evidence against after usually seeing the spiritual experience as unreliable to give one universal truths.

this is just bad logic and almost incomprehensible. (again, the subjective used for the objective?)
"evidence against"? for example?

[_subgenius]

How can you tell the answers come from God rather than some supernatural imposter?

clearly the answer, again, has been offered to you, and quite succinctly.....your unwillingness to accept it because you are predisposed for another answer does not deny that simple fact.

[_Tobin]

How can you tell the answers come from God rather than some supernatural imposter?

clearly the answer, again, has been offered to you, and quite succinctly.....your unwillingness to accept it because you are predisposed for another answer does not deny that simple fact.

Yeah, I really like this one. They seem to repeat this non-sense over and over. The premise is that the Devil is more powerful than God.