The Top Ten and Only Reasons to be a True Believer

[_Chap]

I am confused... Is sub referring to Olodumare when he speaks of god? If so he does not understand the nature of Olodumare.

The problem is that subgenius will almost certainly think this is some kind of joke. In one sense it is, but so far as I can see there is no more reason to see Olorun/Olodumare as a failed attempt to talk about Yahweh than there is to see Yahweh as a failed attempt to talk about Olorun/Olodumare.

Never the less, on and on we go talking about 'God' in these threads as if it was settled that the term was univocal and had an agreed content. However, it clearly does not.

[_SteelHead]

Ah but how can we know if I am not really a Pai de Santos or Ogan at the local Terreiro?

[_Franktalk]

Are you suggesting that the burning in the bosom isn't sufficient witness of truth?

I am suggesting that you answer my questions. Why would you avoid answering the questions? I am happy to discuss my faith and beliefs. If indeed you were witnessed to by the Holy Ghost then God has led you to someplace. What is that someplace and what beliefs did you end up with? Very simple questions that I love to talk about. I would think that an experience from God that ended up with you being a faithful and willing servant of God would motivate you to share your wonderful experience. After all aren't we told not to hide our gifts from God?

Mat 25:25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
Mat 25:26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strewed:

You can ignore me all you want. I will not judge you.

[_Themis]

I am suggesting that you answer my questions.

And what were those questions?

I would think that an experience from God that ended up with you being a faithful and willing servant of God would motivate you to share your wonderful experience. After all aren't we told not to hide our gifts from God?

Interesting that when we ask of your expereince you hide it.

[_Franktalk]

Two blue balls. Really?

You must realize I did that on porpoise.

[_Alfredo]

Subgenius,

I'm going to bed, at this moment, so I'll just correct a few things you misunderstood and then you can tell me what you think. I'll give a more general response later.

Clearly, I mean "interpretation" and "discern" both in the "give meaning" sense...
Clearly, I mean "unreliable" in the sense that relying on your own self-evident experience is no more reliable than buying a lottery ticket and spending the money before the drawing. Except the scope of my argument makes the assumption even more suspicious because everyone thinks they've won the lottery for some strange and unexplainable reason, but no one agrees on where to invest their money to avoid the divine economy crash. They're unreliable foundations to act upon, especially if you're just peddling another eternal investment combined with powerful, but thoroughly understood emotional exploitation. It's a tired trick.

We story-tellers love to jump to conclusions, especially when they serve ourselves and our emotions.
We might imagine that we occasionally jump to conclusions when, in fact, we're making leaps and bounds every day.
We might imagine that we are safe and secure to conclude wild things about the experiences which brought us to the limits of our emotional minds but, in reality, humans have been pushing the limits of emotions and making crap up about it for longer than our species can remember itself.

Sure, to accept that humans are this way is an idea you're willing to meaninglessly explain as consistent within your own paradigm, from the lofty perspective of a world-view which explains everything and always serves itself. But can you accept this may be possible about the foundation for the paradigm you stand on? That even the most faithful LDS are more slaves to human nature than they would admit?

[_ludwigm]

Two blue balls. Really?

You must realize I did that on porpoise.

[_Drifting]

Are you suggesting that the burning in the bosom isn't sufficient witness of truth?

I am suggesting that you answer my questions. Why would you avoid answering the questions? I am happy to discuss my faith and beliefs. If indeed you were witnessed to by the Holy Ghost then God has led you to someplace. What is that someplace and what beliefs did you end up with? Very simple questions that I love to talk about.

That someplace, as already mentioned, is that the Book of Mormon is false and by association, that the Church isn't what it claims to be.

Now that's a very simple answer to your very simple question. It's so simple an answer that you will see I have given it several times already.

So, is the burning in the bosom insufficient in and of itself in determining truth? Frank, this is a very simple question for you to answer.

[_subgenius]

Of course.

Here is an analogy. Suppose I have two numbers, X and Y, and X and Y are not equal to one another.

Then 0*X = 0, and 0*Y = 0

Divide both equations by zero. We obtain two further equations:

X = 0/0, and Y = 0/0

Therefore X=Y, and since X and Y could have been any number, that proves that any two numbers are equal. Now of course the flaw was the division by zero. That is against the rules of arithmetic, because it produces a meaningless result as shown above.

Similarly, once you allow the term 'God' into what is otherwise a perfectly normal proposition, all bets are off. You might think it is obvious what consequences flow from it, but no - subgenius will pop up and wag his finger at you. How naïve you are to think you can tie God down with logic!

That is not a good state of affairs. The obvious solution is to treat 'God' like dividing by zero. Don't let that word into any of your sentences. It will only lead to trouble ....

nice try but your analogy is off.
its more like the notion that there are number systems...real numbers....integers....natural numbers (sizes of sets) .....and rational numbers (ratios of sizes). None of which allow the discussion for a number which exists that when squared equals -1 (negative one)....but this number exists within the number system of complex numbers.
So, the fallacy you overlook is that many of you are dancing around talking about integers and insisting that those rules must be the absolute and only rules for all numbers...which is clearly not the case.
Most of us understand the nature of God and religion...of things that are spiritual (see also 1 Cor 2:14)...and thus are capable of actually having the discussion which the OP initiates but still refuses to acknowledge.

If you do not have a fundamental understanding of God then, of course, He is foolish to you, of course you can not understand Him, or faith, beyond the simple rules of logic...of course, you just do not understand....you are shackled to the earth with only a gaze unto the clouds above.

[_subgenius]

All expereince has to be interpreted.

prove this statement or concede that it is speculation, or rather imagination.

You want your spiritual ones to be exempt simply because they don't stand up to scrutiny.

not true. i have already stated that these experiences can be examined...they just do not require it. One does not have to examine, interpret, or "bring meaning" to even the simplest experiences in life.

Even self evident ones have to be interpreted, although many epistemologists don't think any proposition can be self evident.

again...prove it.

You cannot really have any expereince without interpretation. Interpretation adds the meaning to an experience.

balderdash
i am reminded of how the Savior points out the same foolishness in what you are saying when he speaks about if thy hand offends thee, then cut it off.

but nevertheless, you made the claim...prove it or walk away defeated.