MG & JLHPROF: From Whence Come Spiritual Experiences?

[_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.

Sharing how you think you differentiate will not give us any real knowledge of God, so we will still have to experience it for ourselves.

Also, here is another example of good faith, and not blind faith. Flying in an airplane. People have gained knowledge it is safe and then they take that belief and get in an airplane(action) creating good faith.

[_mentalgymnast]

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.

No. It ends when we are not able to find common ground from which to move on from. And, as I've mentioned before, there are questions that I can answer and those that I can't. I have readily admitted to that. I do not see that as a weakness/failing, by the way. I believe I've done what I can to answer your "simple question", and respond to DrW.

Anyway, I came into the thread to comment on DrW's question/comments, and I did.

Tator and 'DerailerDoc' are taking things in a direction I'd rather not go, so I'm out for now.

DocW, thanks for bringing up an area of discussion that, for me, hits close to home. It's always been an interesting topic for me to read/think about. Mind/body connection and whether or not and/or how God can speak through that conduit of 'fleshy mass' in a way that doesn't mess much with our personal agency/will, desires, etc.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

[_mentalgymnast]

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.

Good to know.

However, I do read a lot of your posts.

While overall, you seem to want to appear agreeable and rational...

Actually, I am.

Except when I'm not being agreeable to what might be the commonly held consensus. But I still try to be as rational as I can. But I'm not perfectly so.

...there are occasions when you admit that your position is weak...

When we get into areas that are lacking complete evidence to the sensory systems that we're built out of...that's usually what happens. I can't prove something that neither one of us can see, touch, or handle directly. And I surely can't prove something from history that I don't have direct knowledge of except for that which has been recorded by other folks. Each with their own biases/prejudices. At a certain point, many times...there is a wall that impedes progress. I readily admit that.

...or that your center does not hold.

That does happen at times.

Thereafter, you seem to immediately return to the position at which you started.

Through my life experience, I do have some default positions, yes.

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

I do feel at a disadvantage trying to describe my faith and why I have faith. It's not easily done. It's sort of a personal thing. And when people of faith do try and describe their experience, it sometimes gets a bit muddled in the telling because we're trying to describe something that is not readily discerned/understood by those that don't have faith.

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

Honestly, that's not where I'm consciously coming from. Whether or not I have some kind of underlying psychological condition that I don't have a handle on, I suppose I'll leave that to the armchair pseudo psychologists around here. But I think I am fairly self aware and me/myself/and I are not aware of any thing approaching problematic passive aggressiveness.
_______________

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 as designation, so long as I have the facts straight.

You have been quite civil. Thus the inclination/motivation I've had to come back after my most recent post and respond to you. You seem to be a curious and honest individual who has questions and seeks for answers. I am like minded.

I suppose I can also be a bit of a cranky old hardass at times too. There, we have something in common.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I would agree with MG on this one... I think the grey area in the middle where science fiction lives is way more fun.

As do I.

And who knows...there might be some 'Capital T Truth' scattered around and/or contained in there somewhere.

A pearl of great price, maybe?

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

Tator and 'DerailerDoc' are taking things in a direction I'd rather not go, so I'm out for now.

The derail YOU started with this:

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

Regards,
MG

moving on...

How do you practice differentiating between spiritual phenomena and simple constructs/fabrications of the mind, when you cannot identify how, specifically, to differentiate between spiritual phenomena and simple constructs/fabrications of the mind?

...Back at a time when I was where you are currently at, I did however, rely on the fact that others told/shared with me that they had been able to...over time...tell the difference. At the time I questioned that. Just as you do....
But I can see, and I think I know, where your question is coming from.

How do you know where ihaq currently is? How do you know where his question is coming from? Why do assume he is relying on others for information? Couldn't you just address the question without the attempt at some weird spiritual journey put-down?

Speaking to DrW's comment about passive aggressive communication, I would consider your response above, especially since you never actually addressed the question and engaged in such back-door personal attacks, to be a perfect example.

DocW, thanks for bringing up an area of discussion that, for me, hits close to home. It's always been an interesting topic for me to read/think about. Mind/body connection and whether or not and/or how God can speak through that conduit of 'fleshy mass' in a way that doesn't mess much with our personal agency/will, desires, etc.

Regards,
MG

What? I've enjoyed DrW's posts and OP in this thread, and that "summing up" is NOT the topic that DrW is talking about.

Blind faith is not knowing but believing and acting as though it is true. Knowing something does not destroy good faith. I have faith in my parents not because I believe things which I have no idea about, but because I know certain things through evidence/experience that makes me put a lot of faith in them as a result. If you know it you are still just as free to choose, but now you know what the consequences of each choice are. How is that a bad thing MG?

Not knowing means people will choose all kinds of things to have blind faith in. How is this a good trait MG, and why should people be punished by God for not guessing the right one?

Excellent point. Faith presented as "not knowing" is not a positive skill, and includes much potential for mis-use. The argument that if one knows something rather than has faith in it, one won't be able to exercise the right to choose is specious as well. If it were true, no one would smoke cigarettes anymore.

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 as designation, so long as I have the facts straight.

Add in your intellectual honesty, your entirely non-passive-aggressive way of communicating, the factual consistency of your posts and your capacity to fully support your ideas, and I'd say the designation "cranky old hard-ass" is a compliment.

[_mentalgymnast]

Here we go again...

The derail YOU started...
1. How do you know...
2. How do you know...
3. Why do assume...
4. Couldn't you just address...
5. [your] attempt at some weird spiritual journey put-down...
6. I would consider your response above [to be an example of passive aggressiveness]...you never actually addressed the question and engaged in such back-door personal attacks, [is] a perfect example [of that].
7...I've enjoyed DrW's posts and OP in this thread, and that "summing up" is NOT the topic that DrW is talking about.
8...[Dr.W, you have an]entirely non-passive-aggressive way of communicating, the factual consistency of your posts and your capacity to fully support your ideas, and I'd say the designation "cranky old hard-ass" is a compliment.

How many of these could be considered to be examples of derail without substantively adding to the discussion and muddying the waters?

Tator, DocCam, and Lemmie. De-railers extraordinaire.

I'm not going to take the time to respond to you. And I won't feed you.

Regards,
MG

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Tator, DocCam, and Lemmie. De-railers extraordinaire.

I'm not going to take the time to respond to you. And I won't feed you.

Regards,
MG

You literally just responded to her.

... 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

[_The Soap Maker]

1. Would you listen and obey?
2. How would you feel about being 'spoon fed'?
3. How do you feel about 'helicopter parents'?

Back to number one...

How would you respond to God...in personal conversation...if He was telling you stuff that you didn't agree with? For example, let's say he directly told you to obey a certain and defined law of chastity/morality. Or a certain way of taking care of your body...no drinking, smoking cigars, no coffee/tea. Or that you needed to make promises to Him or you weren't going to be able come home with Him at a later date. Or that you needed to take a day off each week and go to church and serve in callings...etc. Or if He told you to donate at least 10% of your income to doing stuff like building temples, etc.

If He told you directly ...face to face...to do these things, and others, would you be cool with that? If not, where would you and God go from there?

Would you remain 'best buds'?

I think your concerns revolve mainly around, "Why doesn't God clearly/directly identify Himself to me?"

Right?

Regards,
MG

I'll play along...

1. Would you listen and obey? Listen, yes. Obey, maybe. I would still have my agency but, the cool thing is, at least I would be getting the information straight from the source, rather than having to rely on middle-men, personal interpretation, and unreliable feelings.
2. How would you feel about being 'spoon fed'? When it comes to eternal reward/damnation, I am perfectly fine with being spoon-fed. Again, at least I would be getting the information straight from the source so I would be able to make a better decision.
3. How do you feel about 'helicopter parents'? As opposed to parents that won't even talk face-to-face with their children? Yeah, I'd take the helicopter parent any day. You would think that god could meet somewhere in the middle and at least show up on birthdays, graduations, etc. to actually speak to his kids.

So I'd love to have a face-to-face with god because I would know exactly where I stood, I would know god's expectations of me, and I would be able to clarify contradictions - all while maintaining my agency. Those reasons listed are exactly opposite of how god (allegedly) communicates with his children now. The way I see it, god isn't much different than any dead-beat dad. The difference being we give god a free pass and we blame his children.

[_mentalgymnast]

Tator, DocCam, and Lemmie. De-railers extraordinaire.

I'm not going to take the time to respond to you. And I won't feed you.

Regards,
MG

You literally just responded to her.

I know that. But I won't continue to feed her...or you.

MG