The Top Ten and Only Reasons to be a True Believer

[_Franktalk]

I realize that you've somehow arrived at several interpretive conclusions concerning the nature of spiritual experiences and that you wish to illustrate them thoroughly. I don't care how clearly you can illustrate these conclusions, because as I've explained, the entire thrust of my argument is to question how you've arrived at these particular interpretations/conclusions to begin with. I'm asking you to isolate the single element or method which has led you to believe that the way in which you interpret spiritual communication is preferable or more reliable than any contrary interpretation.

First of all most people have a concept of God based on their own desires. Most people desire a better existence in this world so they make God a fixer or a supplier of stuff. Or they even ask God to make others do their will. Then when they read scripture they see this God of their imagination. Scripture is written to be what you desire. It is a stumbling block for many. I don't know you but I would guess that happened to you. Over time these people are disappointed with God and they tempt God by saying they will believe if He does this or that. Of course He does not give them what they desire. If God is anything He is tough love.

The whole purpose of us being here is to learn good from evil. We are born into a cesspool of evil and we are clothed with a weak body of flesh. It is God's desire that we learn our lesson well. We have the Light of Christ in us that we can listen to or ignore. It is our moral rudder to navigate the dark waters of the earth. We have the witness of the Holy Ghost that will help our spirit if we believe. The body means nothing to God. It is only a shell for the spirit to use in this classroom. So any desire of the flesh is ignored.

God loves us. But we are a spirit so He loves our spirit. If you don't embrace this one truth then all other truths will not come. Then we are to love God. If you don't love God more than the world then scripture will never open to you. If you do get to the point where scripture opens to you the world will reject what you say about scripture.

[_Alfredo]

I realize that you've somehow arrived at several interpretive conclusions concerning the nature of spiritual experiences and that you wish to illustrate them thoroughly. I don't care how clearly you can illustrate these conclusions, because as I've explained, the entire thrust of my argument is to question how you've arrived at these particular interpretations/conclusions to begin with. I'm asking you to isolate the single element or method which has led you to believe that the way in which you interpret spiritual communication is preferable or more reliable than any contrary interpretation.

First of all most people have a concept of God based on their own desires. Most people desire a better existence in this world so they make God a fixer or a supplier of stuff. Or they even ask God to make others do their will. Then when they read scripture they see this God of their imagination. Scripture is written to be what you desire. It is a stumbling block for many. I don't know you but I would guess that happened to you. Over time these people are disappointed with God and they tempt God by saying they will believe if He does this or that. Of course He does not give them what they desire. If God is anything He is tough love.

The whole purpose of us being here is to learn good from evil. We are born into a cesspool of evil and we are clothed with a weak body of flesh. It is God's desire that we learn our lesson well. We have the Light of Christ in us that we can listen to or ignore. It is our moral rudder to navigate the dark waters of the earth. We have the witness of the Holy Ghost that will help our spirit if we believe. The body means nothing to God. It is only a shell for the spirit to use in this classroom. So any desire of the flesh is ignored.

God loves us. But we are a spirit so He loves our spirit. If you don't embrace this one truth then all other truths will not come. Then we are to love God. If you don't love God more than the world then scripture will never open to you. If you do get to the point where scripture opens to you the world will reject what you say about scripture.

awwwwwlrightyyy... I'll try once more and explain this very simply. We're talking at two different levels, and I want you to acknowledge that my only responses have been the attempt to direct your attention to consider not your interpretive conclusions about the nature of religious experience, but about the method used to reach these views. You've yet to do anything but provide interpretive conclusions about religious experience.

I'm attempting to shift the context of this conversation to a perspective independent of your interpretive conclusions concerning religious experience for the sake of a formal discussion.

So, far you seem to have ignored every suggestion to do so. You have continued to discuss the interpretive conclusions about religious experience which are dependent upon a presumably reliable method of interpretation between religious experience, which I question. This is, after all, why I created this thread. If you want to have an informal discussion, I'll be glad to continue this very conversation in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22560

My argument contends that any methods used to discern between religious experiences and arrive at interpretive conclusions will be fallaciously dependent upon themselves. So it's a bit suspicious that the only response you seem to be capable of offering are religious interpretive conclusions which beg the question and therefore commit the same logical fallacy my argument contends exists at the bottom of every argument any apologist ever has to give.

If you don't understand by now that I'm trying to approach this from a clearly different angle, I'm not sure how much more carefully I can explain this to get your attention.

[_Tobin]

I never claimed I understood your point. This was simply an attempt to answer.

Are you satisfied with the answer?

It is an answer. It is satisfactory for me. I cannot speak to whether or not it would satisfactory for anyone else. I would instead encourage them to seek their own experiences and answers to a level that they would find satisfactory instead.

It really isn't about that. Let's suppose it was a false experience often characterized as coming from the "Devil". It erased my doubts that such interactions are not only possible, but they can and do happen.

But it is about that, because even if I grant that "such interactions" are possible... how could you possibly know whether you've been supernaturally blessed or deceived?

Again, does it matter? I was a rather content atheist at the time and certainly did not believe such interactions (positive or negative) were even possible. This instantly changed my perspective.

I don't. To each their own I'd say. For me, it was sufficient to dispel any doubt there was a God. Beyond that, I'm am uncertain as to what is true. It did compell me to re-evaluate a number of things in my life and I think for the better.

Glad to hear things are going well, but unfortunately, I don't see how this leads you to believe in a God. Are you deist? Are you open to a limited supernatural being? Are you open to several Gods active in this universe? What are the flavors of your experience?

Call it God or aliens or whatever. It was a shocking occurrence and realization for an me and yes, I am now a deist. Does it mean there is a God or super-intelligent aliens or something else? Absolutely (for me since I had the experience and you did not). I now spend my time coming to terms with what that means and it is something I dwell and reflect upon.

I'm sorry. These are all leading questions. By flavor, I mean how do you interpret this experience... After it's established that you're still interpreting your experience using some method which you find reliable, I plan to respond with the original argument.

I had an experience. That is what I do know. How I feel about it and interpret it changes over time as I mature, engender knew ideas, speak to others, and makes changes and choices as I progress in my life. Picture a car wreck in which you are involved. Following the event as you reflect up on it, do you ask yourself, is there anything I could have done to avoid it? Say you are cited after the accident and do not believe you were at fault. Do you ask yourself if there is anything you could have said or done differently to pursuade the officer not to cite you. This is much the same thing. My experience, though this may sound funny to some, I would characterize as a spiritual car wreck for me.

Isn't that a given? Any experience with God is alien to our normal, everyday experiences. I look at it this way now. Suppose intelligent life evolved on another world a billion years ago, how transcendent and intelligent would they seem to us now? If that alien race (or God) can interact with in such a way and it does no harm and causes us to re-evaluate our understanding of the universe and how we proceed with our lives and what choices we make (hopefully for the better), I believe that is a positive thing.

Umm... clearly that's not what I meant. Alien, as in, little grey man who mucks with your mind.

That presupposes that a highly intelligent and transcendent alien being would torment us for what? the mere curiousity of it? That would seem like an extremely odd behaviour coming from beings possessing such power. It would be like saying they are like small boys with a magnifying-glass tormenting a colony of ants in comparison. I'm sure it is possible, but I doubt they would engendered such attributes and have advanced as far as they have without turning on each other. Having this kind of experience does not mean you have to abandon reason.

Sure, it's a positive thing that you're life is better because of it. But when it comes to Mormonism, the pragmatic effect of the experience is only part of the equation. Mormonism also depends upon the experience providing epistemic foundation for belief. I think we're on very different pages.

I think you and I look at Mormonism quite differently. I view Mormonism as way to filter ideas and view events. Put on a different filter, say as Buddhist or Muslim, and you may get a different reflection and perspective to the same set of ideas and events.

[_Franktalk]

... So it's a bit suspicious that the only response you seem to be capable of offering are religious interpretive conclusions which beg the question and therefore commit the same logical fallacy my argument contends exists at the bottom of every argument any apologist ever has to give.

If you don't understand by now that I'm trying to approach this from a clearly different angle, I'm not sure how much more carefully I can explain this to get your attention.

I reject your conclusion that a logical fallacy exist. It only exist in the limited set of things you declare to be valid. Your closed mind prevents a meaningful discussion. So in essence you have set a stage and set boundary conditions so that your predetermined conclusions could win the day. Your argument hangs on you like a cheap suit. If indeed you wish to have someone say to you that you are the most brilliant person in the world then I will announce that in this game you are a master player.

[_Alfredo]

... So it's a bit suspicious that the only response you seem to be capable of offering are religious interpretive conclusions which beg the question and therefore commit the same logical fallacy my argument contends exists at the bottom of every argument any apologist ever has to give.

If you don't understand by now that I'm trying to approach this from a clearly different angle, I'm not sure how much more carefully I can explain this to get your attention.

I reject your conclusion that a logical fallacy exist. It only exist in the limited set of things you declare to be valid. Your closed mind prevents a meaningful discussion. So in essence you have set a stage and set boundary conditions so that your predetermined conclusions could win the day. Your argument hangs on you like a cheap suit. If indeed you wish to have someone say to you that you are the most brilliant person in the world then I will announce that in this game you are a master player.

Your confidence leads me to assume you know exactly which premise in my original argument is flawed and in detail. Please, I would love your most direct and potent disagreement with my fallen and sinful anti Mormon argument.

[_Alfredo]

Wewps. Forgot to predict that any response you offer is somehow contingent upon the presupposition that Mormonism is the proper and unquestionable interpreter for any argument, including the argument that Mormonism is no reliable starting point for interpretation. A belief you've adopted undoubtedly by interpretation of a religious experience which is also contingent upon the pressuposition that your method of interpretation is reliable.

[_Franktalk]

Your confidence leads me to assume you know exactly which premise in my original argument is flawed and in detail. Please, I would love your most direct and potent disagreement with my fallen and sinful anti Mormon argument.

I know very little. That of course is my biggest asset. Those who think they know everything always suffer the biggest falls. I do have confidence that the path I am on is the right one. I can offer no argument for you that would make any difference.

Your arguments do have a familiar ring to them. Seems that I heard similar ideas from another person who posts here. But I may be wrong, these kinds of arguments all run together sometimes.

[_Alfredo]

Your confidence leads me to assume you know exactly which premise in my original argument is flawed and in detail. Please, I would love your most direct and potent disagreement with my fallen and sinful anti Mormon argument.

I know very little. That of course is my biggest asset. Those who think they know everything always suffer the biggest falls. I do have confidence that the path I am on is the right one. I can offer no argument for you that would make any difference.

Your arguments do have a familiar ring to them. Seems that I heard similar ideas from another person who posts here. But I may be wrong, these kinds of arguments all runi together sometimes.

You can offer no argument which makes a difference within the limited system I've invented for the purpose of satisfying my "natural manhood", right?

If this is clear to you, then I don't see what's keeping you from asking me that question I can't answer which demonstrates I've made some mistake in forming my argument.

You are, in effect, having a disagreement and refusing to consider any possibility which doesn't presuppose you're right. And I'm the one often labeled as arrogant? Have you even considered for a moment any idea which doesn't serve this presupposition you've yet to even attempt to justify?

So, please. What am I missing which, if realized, would prevent my argument from functioning. Exactly where do I go wrong?

But please, in writing your response, pay special attention to whether your refutation depends upon the unmentioned presupposition that Mormonism can be trusted to not simply serve itself when confronted with the argument that Mormonism can do nothing but serve itself when raising the question of whether it's interpretations of religious experience can be trusted.

I've given direct and clear response to every comment you've made. I'm seriously interested in the challenge you have for me. How is argument limited in any sense except in the fact that it doesn't presupposes Mormonism, but only considers it's truth a possibility?

[_Franktalk]

But please, in writing your response, pay special attention to whether your refutation depends upon the unmentioned presupposition that Mormonism can be trusted to not simply serve itself when confronted with the argument that Mormonism can do nothing but serve itself when raising the question of whether it's interpretations of religious experience can be trusted.

The religious experience is part of who we are. The gifts of the spirit are real. The message from God can be obtained from scripture. To me these are just as real as a rock is to a geologist. If you take away rocks from the geologist then he has nothing to define the concepts of rock formation. If you take away the religious experience then the religious person has nothing to define the concepts of religion. You may not trust the religious experience, many do not. If you are told of a kind of rock you can take a journey to where the rocks are. You can experience the rocks first hand. You can back up what others have said about those rocks. The same is true of religious experiences. But the journey is inside of you. You must cast off the world and embrace a greater reality. If you cling to the rocks of this world then your journey will never start. Your independent experience will never happen. If you are unwilling to make that journey that is your choice. But to imply that others who have made that journey are not to be trusted is just a defense tactic to support your fear of the unknown.

[_Alfredo]

If you take away the religious experience then the religious person has nothing to define the concepts of religion.

So, you do understand! Sweet and savory progress!

You may not trust the religious experience, many do not. If you are told of a kind of rock you can take a journey to where the rocks are. You can experience the rocks first hand. You can back up what others have said about those rocks. The same is true of religious experiences.

...but you still don't understand that to engage religious experience in this manner is to interpret religious experience, and thus begs the question of whether we should trust the method or way in which interpret.

But to imply that others who have made that journey are not to be trusted is just a defense tactic to support your fear of the unknown.

LOL... did I imply that? Because I thought it was the Church who claimed that the spiritual journeys of other religions can't entirely be trusted... Something about them having some light but also a good mix of lies and half-truths...?

Oh wait, it's doctrine. I embrace the unknown as it truly is: unknown.