MG & JLHPROF: From Whence Come Spiritual Experiences?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'd insult you, but you exist and that's insulting enough for everyone.

- Doc

Beginnings of a derail...here it comes, folks.

Your response does not lend itself to a productive/civil conversation and/or discussion. It does lead us down a road that ultimately leads to a cul-de-sac/dead end where we find ourselves going round and round wasting each other's time. Rather than leading us in an unproductive/uncivil direction, you might want to add substantively to the discussion?

Regards,
MG

You have a remarkably prodigious self awareness of your own superiority.

Regards,
MG

... I consider MG as a bit passive aggressive and sorely afflicted by faith, he seems to be still rational in the main.

Not sure where the "passive aggressive" is coming from. I know others have expressed this along the way, but I'm somewhat perplexed as to why you might say this as a result of any interactions I've had with you?

Regards,
MG

Your responses do not lend themselves to a productive/civil conversation and/or discussion. It does lead us down a road that ultimately leads to a cul-de-sac/dead end where we find ourselves going round and round wasting each other's time. Rather than leading us in an unproductive/uncivil direction, you might want to add substantively to the discussion?

Regards,
Doc

[_Themis]

I think I'm getting better at it. I don't think I can say/share much more than that with you because I believe it's something we each have to experience/know for ourselves.

I'm sure you believe this excuse, but for many who have been where you are, we recognize it is because you have fooled yourself into believing you can.

[_mentalgymnast]

Knowing something does not destroy good faith.

Alma 32:
17 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.

18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.

19 And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?

20 Now of this thing ye must judge. Behold, I say unto you, that it is on the one hand even as it is on the other; and it shall be unto every man according to his work.

21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

22 And now, behold, I say unto you, and I would that ye should remember, that God is merciful unto all who believe on his name; therefore he desireth, in the first place, that ye should believe, yea, even on his word.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

... you might want to add substantively to the discussion?

That's been my intent.

You?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I think I'm getting better at it. I don't think I can say/share much more than that with you because I believe it's something we each have to experience/know for ourselves.

I'm sure you believe this excuse, but for many who have been where you are, we recognize it is because you have fooled yourself into believing you can.

And I think this is where the conversation will probably need to end. We will simply have to agree to disagree on this point rather than going round and round. But as I said to IHAQ, I think I can readily empathize/understand where you are coming from.

Regards,
MG

[_Tator]

Your responses do not lend themselves to a productive/civil conversation and/or discussion. It does lead us down a road that ultimately leads to a cul-de-sac/dead end where we find ourselves going round and round wasting each other's time. Rather than leading us in an unproductive/uncivil direction, you might want to add substantively to the discussion?

Regards,
Doc

Sigline worthy. But damn Doc, what a derail? You just sent this thread to the thread on plagiarism with the passive/aggressive MG tagging along.

[_Themis]

Knowing something does not destroy good faith.

Alma 32:
17 Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe.

18 Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.

19 And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?

20 Now of this thing ye must judge. Behold, I say unto you, that it is on the one hand even as it is on the other; and it shall be unto every man according to his work.

21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

22 And now, behold, I say unto you, and I would that ye should remember, that God is merciful unto all who believe on his name; therefore he desireth, in the first place, that ye should believe, yea, even on his word.

Regards,
MG

Yes blind faith. There are different kinds of faith. Yours here is just blind.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

... you might want to add substantively to the discussion?

That's been my intent.

You?

Regards,
MG

I'd insult you, but you exist and that's insulting enough for everyone.

- Doc

Beginnings of a derail...here it comes, folks.

Your response does not lend itself to a productive/civil conversation and/or discussion. It does lead us down a road that ultimately leads to a cul-de-sac/dead end where we find ourselves going round and round wasting each other's time. Rather than leading us in an unproductive/uncivil direction, you might want to add substantively to the discussion?

Regards,
MG

You have a remarkably prodigious self awareness of your own superiority.

Regards,
MG

... I consider MG as a bit passive aggressive and sorely afflicted by faith, he seems to be still rational in the main.

Not sure where the "passive aggressive" is coming from. I know others have expressed this along the way, but I'm somewhat perplexed as to why you might say this as a result of any interactions I've had with you?

Regards,
MG

Just get off the ad hom otherwise your responses do not lend themselves to a productive/civil conversation and/or discussion. It does lead us down a road that ultimately leads to a cul-de-sac/dead end where we find ourselves going round and round wasting each other's time. Rather than leading us in an unproductive/uncivil direction, you might want to add substantively to the discussion?

Regards,
Doc

[_Themis]

And I think this is where the conversation will probably need to end. We will simply have to agree to disagree on this point rather than going round and round. But as I said to IHAQ, I think I can readily empathize/understand where you are coming from.

Regards,
MG

Certainly it ends when you cannot answer simple questions. You have already argued that God uses the same method as all the other natural spiritual experiences not from God, so there is not going to be a way to know the difference. It's just what you want to believe. Blind faith.

by the way The other way you avoid questions is by taking a break from the forum.

Themis

It sounds like you go for the catalyst theory, which is what I am trying to see how it explains the Book of Abraham. The main idea is the papyri had nothing to do with Abraham, but acted as a catalyst for Joseph to think about Abraham and seek inspiration about him. I'm ok with the idea some artifact helped make Joseph think about something and then go ask God about it. Joseph though identified the papyri as Abraham's story. He was very clear about that and he claimed he was translating the papyri into English. So much so he made translations of the hieroglyphs and translated the meanings of different parts of three facsimiles. So my question is why did Joseph make these claims? Without God telling him the papyri is Abraham's story, he would have no reason to think it contained any story of a Biblical prophet.

[Guest]

... I consider MG as a bit passive aggressive and sorely afflicted by faith, he seems to be still rational in the main.

I don't see faith as being an affliction. I see it as a result of having to make choices based upon incomplete information/evidence. It becomes more or less a challenge, rather than an affliction. And yes, I would consider myself to be "rational in the main".

Not sure where the "passive aggressive" is coming from. I know others have expressed this along the way, but I'm somewhat perplexed as to why you might say this as a result of any interactions I've had with you?

Regards,
MG

MG,

In response to your question about being designated as passive aggressive, you are correct. That is to say, I cannot say that you have exhibited such behavior in response to me directly.

However, I do read a lot of your posts. While overall, you seem to want to appear agreeable and rational, there are occasions when you admit that your position is weak or that your center does not hold. Thereafter, you seem to immediately return to the position at which you started.

In stating or defending your position, you sometimes seem often to actually apologize for the nonsense you espouse - and then continue to do so.

Such behavior (to my mind anyway) is pretty close to a textbook definition of passive aggressive.
_______________

That being said, I will acknowledge right here that I probably come across to many as a bit of a cranky old hardass. To the extent that it is out there, I have no problem with such a designation, so long as I have the facts straight.