The Top Ten and Only Reasons to be a True Believer

[Guest]

i tend to avoid inept posts, but your tenacity merits this exception.
You see the issue, which as been addressed ad nausea, is that the body does not "create" the experience any more than it creates the cold which causes it to sneeze. You quibble here and there about the sneeze while everyone else is discussing the cold.

I see only your ineptness to address the issue. The cold is a terrible analogy. A better one would be dreams, which interestingly are an important spiritual experience for many. Now everyone I know thinks most dreams are created by the body, even if many may believe some dreams come from a divine source. You assert that the spiritual expereince comes from a divine being, yet you cannot back this up. You also cannot show that the body is incapable of producing the expereince, and this really is the issue. I see people having spiritual expereince yet coming to different conclusions as to their meanings. I see we are capable of hallucinations, dreams, visions, etc. Drugs have played a role in this for thousands of years, and now science is even creating the spiritual type experiences.

The larger problem with your "theory" (aside from offering no actual proof that it is accurate) is that if we consider the body as nothing more than a skin bag full of chemical reactions, then absolutely (yes absolutely) everything you do and think is a reaction...a chemical reaction...a chemical reaction bound by the laws of the universe to always behave the same way...every time...every where. This means that there is, in fact, no you...there is no freedom....and there is not one single instance of you ever being able to choose "otherwise".
Now, an immature and somewhat intellectually challenged mind may consider this the limit of their existence, but unfortunately it is not.

Not the issue.

again, prove this...which you can not nor will not...because you lack both the ordinance and the delivery system.

I already told you where to go. There is to much information to bring it up here. I know you don't accept it, but not my problem. Believe what ever you like if it makes you happy.

absurd

I agree that his story is absurd when you look at how it changes over time. :)

first
do your parents know you are on the internet?
second
please, please, please, put me on ignore because you are ill-equipped for even a fundamental discussion on this subject.

(now i feel bad.....you might actually be r*******)

A sure sign you can't address the evidence or bring any up to support your assertions when you start to attack the person.

[_Themis]

.....

try the scriptures my friend:

2 Cor 4:18
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

now you can understand that, in fact, you are not "looking" at what the rest of are looking at.

I know you can't see thetons, but that does not mean they don't exist. :) I have been where you are, so I am not to worried about it.

[_Alfredo]

because you are moving the goalposts...see your OP.

"3) Until these discrepancies are resolved, judgment concerning whether Mormon interpretation can be trusted over contrary interpretation, at best, cannot be made in favor of Mormonism, if any judgement can be made at all."

I haven't moved the goal post. You've offered no method of judgement which resolves the differences between revelations.

the notion of "self-evident" is just that...it is self-evident.
its like asking yourself...how do i know that i am....the asking itself proves it. there is no "tell".

Then is it possible to confuse something which isn't self-evident to be strongly perceived as self-evident?

sure i can....application

In what sense does the application of anything resolve differences between religious experiences and finds religious truth?

Because it seems to me that nearly everyone is already convinced they've found religious truth through application, yet not all agree. How is this possible if there are not differences between the methods of application? And if there are differences in the methods of application, by what standard do we determine which methods lead to mis-application and which are successful?

this is a basic human condition...all of our actions are based on "presuppositions". we always assume something to be true unless significant evidence contradicts that assumption, which is itself good reasoning (as i stated in earlier post).
The chicken always believes the farmer is going to bring food until one day he brings an ax.
and likewise you set your alarm clock every night.......

There is more than a generous amount of significant evidence to suggest that you will, based on religious experience, be thoroughly convinced of a revealed "truth" that is, in fact, not true.

there is no wider scope...you are using the limitations of logic to discuss a topic that exceeds those limitations. Its like trying to discuss poetry with only a paintbrush.

The scope contains the way we approach any idea which "exceeds" the limitations of logic. How do we recognize what is beyond logic as distinct from imagination?

Pushing the scope past logic doesn't help us decide which revelations are to be accepted as exceeding any effective logical application.

balderdash
your fallacy, as stated before is in our concept of "differentiate revelations".

How do you tell whether your revelation can be trusted, even after you're convinced you've received one?

There are convincing false revelations.
There are convincing true revelations.

If any are to be trusted, how do you tell the difference between the extremely convincing perception of a revelation and an actual revelation?

[_subgenius]

I know you can't see thetons, but that does not mean they don't exist. :) I have been where you are, so I am not to worried about it.

1st
"looking" and "see" are not literal in this context, a point which is obvious to most. It is about the physical perception of things as opposed to not (ie spiritual perception). Yet another glaring indication that you may be incapable of discussing this topic.
2nd
Thetons??? do you mean thetan, at which case the scientology forum is elsewhere...good luck.
3rd
if you have been where i am, then clearly you are now taking steps backwards...and that i worry about.

[_subgenius]

I haven't moved the goal post. You've offered no method of judgement which resolves the differences between revelations.

you have not proven that any resolution is necessary.

Then is it possible to confuse something which isn't self-evident to be strongly perceived as self-evident?

it is possible to confuse a blue dot adjacent to yellow dot for a larger green dot...but that is not the case here. What you describe is not "possible".
self-evident is not perceived...it is self evident.....perceived is something else.
perceived is you watching a magic trick, even when you "know" it is a trick.
self-evident is the "you" part...no perception required.
you are trying to confuse the definition of two distinct concepts in order to create your argument...this is why i made the initial criticisms to your OP...for which you attempted to invoke some sort of poetic license as a story-teller - and i agree...you are telling a story.

In what sense does the application of anything resolve differences between religious experiences and finds religious truth?

again, resolution between religious experiences has yet to be determined as necessary.
as for religious truth, please clarify what you mean by "religious truth"....do you mean like "thou shalt not kill" is truly from God or that it is from God (given) but it happens to be true....because in application it proves to be?

Because it seems to me that nearly everyone is already convinced they've found religious truth through application, yet not all agree.

well, as long as it "seems" that way...then surely that must be true....right?

How is this possible if there are not differences between the methods of application?

how is it not possible?
for example...one study shows that altruistic behavior by men and by women yields different results
http://www.csub.edu/~mdulcich/documents ... uences.pdf

another example
This study examined the consistency of results from the two preschool versions when completed by parents of clinically referred preschoolers. Comparisons of similarly named scales found significant correlations. Mean scores for several of the constructs were significantly different, however, and often resulted in inconsistent classification decisions.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/se ... o=EJ877051

another example
Respondents do not answer questions the same way in person, on the phone, on paper or via the web. Different survey modes produce different results
http://blog.vovici.com/blog/bid/52933/M ... nt-Results

there is an interesting aspect of Google search....it actually influences its search results based on previous searches you have done...so you may type a search phrase one day and get results...then days later type the phrase again...get "different" results.

i would even speculate that you and i could type the same sentence, post it on this forum, and people would have different reactions.

the bottom line is that you are trying to propose, promote, and/or support a deterministic philosophy with this argument, and it just does not wash. Determinism flies in the face of free-will or agency, i am most likely an incompatiblist on that issue.
So, if you are pressing the argument of Determinism then so be it, and as i said originally...you went the long way around the barn for that.
Your argument leads to a life that dissolves the existence of any morality (amoral) and personal responsibility for one's actions - simply because one is unable to ever ever choose otherwise.

And if there are differences in the methods of application, by what standard do we determine which methods lead to mis-application and which are successful?

by what standard? seriously?

There is more than a generous amount of significant evidence to suggest that you will, based on religious experience, be thoroughly convinced of a revealed "truth" that is, in fact, not true.

but the "probability" favors otherwise. The "not true" is not by way of the revelation in an of itself, but rather by way of the application. That is to say, the revelation is always true - whether eternally true or true for 5 minutes...true is true.

The scope contains the way we approach any idea which "exceeds" the limitations of logic. How do we recognize what is beyond logic as distinct from imagination?

false dichotomy. You seem to be asserting that things are either logical or imaginary and nothing else...that is simply not true.

Pushing the scope past logic doesn't help us decide which revelations are to be accepted as exceeding any effective logical application.

sure it does

How do you tell whether your revelation can be trusted, even after you're convinced you've received one?

see discussion about self-evident above...more importantly see blue/yellow dot versus green dot.

There are convincing false revelations.
There are convincing true revelations.

how do you know this? if you know there is true and there is false...then surely you know the method of distinction....? in fact, you just know "a" method of distinction...and unfortunately it is a method that is quite limited when applied to this paradigm...useful to a point, but quite limited indeed.

If any are to be trusted, how do you tell the difference between the extremely convincing perception of a revelation and an actual revelation?

asking the same question in the same post wont change the answer...see above
(wait a second...you repeated the same behavior and got a different result...shocking!)

[_Buffalo]

So you're saying you're engaging in tautology? Fantastic. :)

wow...this is all you got?.....even for you that one is lame.

First you admit your posts are devoid of logic, then you suggest you're engaging in tautology. I'd like to cede the rest of my time to my opponent. :)

[_Themis]

1st
"looking" and "see" are not literal in this context, a point which is obvious to most. It is about the physical perception of things as opposed to not (ie spiritual perception). Yet another glaring indication that you may be incapable of discussing this topic.
2nd
Thetons??? do you mean thetan, at which case the scientology forum is elsewhere...good luck.

You are still avoiding the issues here. I did misspell thetan, but it is still a good point. You assume spiritual is less physical then Scientology belief about thetans, but to them it is equivalent. You still avoid the possibility that the spiritual is a creation of your body. That your spiritual perception is also just your own bodies creation. I can understand why you would avoid this issue.

3rd
if you have been where i am, then clearly you are now taking steps backwards...and that i worry about.

Apparently I must understand it better since you can't even discuss the subject, and instead resort to insults. How do you know what the body is capable of, and not capable of?

by the way you have also still avioded how you think your spiritual expereinces are not being interpreted, since all experience is interpreted. You ran from this one. :)

[_subgenius]

First you admit your posts are devoid of logic,

which is necessary in order for you to follow them.

then you suggest you're engaging in tautology.

at best this is disingenuous, but likely it is just a lie.

I'd like to cede the rest of my time to my opponent. :)

there is no opposition where proposition does not exist...you are in "bliss" my friend...bliss indeed.

[_subgenius]

You are still avoiding the issues here. I did misspell thetan, but it is still a good point.

its actually not a good point...pretty sure it is not even a point.

You assume spiritual is less physical then Scientology belief about thetans, but to them it is equivalent. You still avoid the possibility that the spiritual is a creation of your body. That your spiritual perception is also just your own bodies creation. I can understand why you would avoid this issue.

what you have posted seems mostly incoherent...but it seems that your position is that the spiritual is a delusion and it is in fact "physical" - for which i have already stated why i disagree with that position (biochemical skin bag, etc..).
Unfortunately, if the spiritual is a physical reaction, then you have failed to support what it is in reaction to...and subsequently the genesis of that reaction...and so forth.

Apparently I must understand it better since you can't even discuss the subject, and instead resort to insults. How do you know what the body is capable of, and not capable of?

exactly what is the subject that you are discussing?

by the way you have also still avioded how you think your spiritual expereinces are not being interpreted, since all experience is interpreted. You ran from this one. :)

prove your claim that experience is interpreted...and while you are at it, use the dictionary to look up "discern", or self-evident, or manifest, etc...and for that matter, look up interpretation.
as for "avoiding"you have yet to answer a single question posed to you by me....so perhaps i am just "reacting" in kind....?

[_Themis]

its actually not a good point...pretty sure it is not even a point.

Another dodge.

what you have posted seems mostly incoherent...but it seems that your position is that the spiritual is a delusion and it is in fact "physical" -

I am suggest the possibility that the body can create it. I would say physical in the same sense that a dream is physical. Even Joseph taught the spiritual being was physical.

for which i have already stated why i disagree with that position (biochemical skin bag, etc..).

I don't recall anything you gave that explained what your position was.

Unfortunately, if the spiritual is a physical reaction, then you have failed to support what it is in reaction to...and subsequently the genesis of that reaction...and so forth.

I am not saying for sure that ir is, but just bringing up a reasonable possibility. I think drugs and scientific research is showing evidence for just that, but I remain open to other possibilities. You are the one asserting that it is coming from a divine being, and that is how we should be evaluating religious claims. You need to back up why you think it has to be a divine being, and why it couldn't be the body creating it.

exactly what is the subject that you are discussing?

See above.

prove your claim that experience is interpreted...and while you are at it, use the dictionary to look up "discern", or self-evident, or manifest, etc...and for that matter, look up interpretation.

I did address it earlier, but you ignored it. You even gave your baby example, and I showed that yes even that is being interpreted. Maybe you could provide your definition of self evident it so I might know where you stand on it. I have yet to see an example given that did not require interpretation. To bad Runtu was not around. I remember some good threads in which he was discussing this very topic.