Blessings of Tithing?

[_maklelan]

Gee, didn't go fleeing with your tail between your legs from another thread after you accused me of "putting words in [your] mouth"? I did not say anything about blessings being "invalid." I said that they could not be traced to tithing. Or would you care to offer up another example?

I was unaware that blessings must have a paper trail that must be free of human interaction. We must have an entirely different definition of the word blessing. Tell me, how do you personally define a blessing, and what requirements must a blessing meet in order to be "traced to tithing"?

The fact that the realization occurred retrospectively does not make a difference. An expectation of blessings is still an expectation, even if it occurs later on. Or would you rather I revise my question to say, "Did you later try to attribute your upswing in fortune to your payment of tithing"?

OS if a blessing is ever recognized as such it is automatically disqualified as a blessing, or is it just thta it is automatically relegated to wishful thinking?

???? You sound upset, Mak. Let's talk about this.

No, I'm not upset. I've been perfectly aware since day one thta nothing I ever say is going to penetrate the prejudices of most of the people on this board. I believe the same can be said for many LDS posters over on the MADB. I'm not upset about it.

Where have I ever denied "the existence of miracles"?

I said "appears to" because I've never seen you flat out deny it, but you've also never endorsed, or made, an argument that at all implies that you believe they are at all possible. Is "appears to" too conclusive?

[_guy sajer]

Mak has provided us with a classic example of the fallacy "generalizing from a sample size of one."

What about the fallacy of addressing an argument completely different than the one addressed by my post? An individual requested examples of blessings from tithing and I shared a couple of examples that I believe to be blessings from tithing. If you would like to turn this thread into proving that all miracles can just conveniently be classified as coincidences with one fell stroke (and I do mean fell) then I'll bow out. If you want to say "Hey, you can feel that way if you wish, but I feel differently," like a few others then I appreciate your input and we can all move on. Blessings have never been defined as something miraculous, and they do not preclude human intervention, so there's really no reason for calling me out like this.

I don't have to provide evidence that miracles can conveniently be classified as coincidencences, as I have no burden of proof on this one. You are the one claiming a cause and effect relationship between paying tithing and receipt of "blessings," which you appear to define in terms of financial security. A rather extraordinary claim, I might add.

You are, moreover, asserting a universalizable principle: paying tithing = financial security (or other forms of blessings).

Implied, moreover, by your assertion is that those who pay tithing enjoy, at the margin, greater financial security (or blessings) than those who do not.

I am pointing out in reply that:

1. There exist sufficient counterexamples to your first assertion to demontrate convincingly that paying tithing does not equal financial security. There is no systematic evidence in support of this assertion and plenty of evidence against it.

2. There exist sufficient counterexamples to demonstrate convincingly that paying tithing does not, at the margin, produce greater financial security relative to not paying tithing.

Your assertion is based on a set of cherry picked anecdotes, which a more careful observation of the world would quickly reveal are anything but representative of the common human experience.

Belief that tithing = blessings may be good faith, but it is lousy empiricism.

I don't have to demonstrate that the "blessing" you observe are coincidences, you have to demonstrate they are actually blessings.

This you have not done, nor can you do it.

Placing myself outside of the Mormon experience, I can see them for what they most likely are: fortuitous coincidences, which happen millions of times a day to millions of people. The law of averages and common sense tell us that this is most likely the case.

[_maklelan]

Mak has provided us with a classic example of the fallacy "generalizing from a sample size of one."

What about the fallacy of addressing an argument completely different than the one addressed by my post? An individual requested examples of blessings from tithing and I shared a couple of examples that I believe to be blessings from tithing. If you would like to turn this thread into proving that all miracles can just conveniently be classified as coincidences with one fell stroke (and I do mean fell) then I'll bow out. If you want to say "Hey, you can feel that way if you wish, but I feel differently," like a few others then I appreciate your input and we can all move on. Blessings have never been defined as something miraculous, and they do not preclude human intervention, so there's really no reason for calling me out like this.

I don't have to provide evidence that miracles can conveniently be classified as coincidencences, as I have no burden of proof on this one. You are the one claiming a cause and effect relationship between paying tithing and receipt of "blessings," which you appear to define in terms of financial security. A rather extraordinary claim, I might add.

You are, moreover, asserting a universalizable principle: paying tithing = financial security (or other forms of blessings).

Implied, moreover, by your assertion is that those who pay tithing enjoy, at the margin, greater financial security (or blessings) than those who do not.

I am pointing out in reply that:

1. There exist sufficient counterexamples to your first assertion to demontrate convincingly that paying tithing does not equal financial security. There is no systematic evidence in support of this assertion and plenty of evidence against it.

2. There exist sufficient counterexamples to demonstrate convincingly that paying tithing does not, at the margin, produce greater financial security relative to not paying tithing.

Your assertion is based on a set of cherry picked anecdotes, which a more careful observation of the world would quickly reveal are anything but representative of the common human experience.

Belief that tithing = blessings may be good faith, but it is lousy empiricism.

I don't have to demonstrate that the "blessing" you observe are coincidences, you have to demonstrate they are actually blessings.

This you have not done, nor can you do it.

Placing myself outside of the Mormon experience, I can see them for what they most likely are: fortuitous coincidences, which happen millions of times a day to millions of people. The law of averages and common sense tell us that this is most likely the case.

Do you believe that blessings are real or are they just imagined?

[_guy sajer]

Mak has provided us with a classic example of the fallacy "generalizing from a sample size of one."

What about the fallacy of addressing an argument completely different than the one addressed by my post? An individual requested examples of blessings from tithing and I shared a couple of examples that I believe to be blessings from tithing. If you would like to turn this thread into proving that all miracles can just conveniently be classified as coincidences with one fell stroke (and I do mean fell) then I'll bow out. If you want to say "Hey, you can feel that way if you wish, but I feel differently," like a few others then I appreciate your input and we can all move on. Blessings have never been defined as something miraculous, and they do not preclude human intervention, so there's really no reason for calling me out like this.

I don't have to provide evidence that miracles can conveniently be classified as coincidencences, as I have no burden of proof on this one. You are the one claiming a cause and effect relationship between paying tithing and receipt of "blessings," which you appear to define in terms of financial security. A rather extraordinary claim, I might add.

You are, moreover, asserting a universalizable principle: paying tithing = financial security (or other forms of blessings).

Implied, moreover, by your assertion is that those who pay tithing enjoy, at the margin, greater financial security (or blessings) than those who do not.

I am pointing out in reply that:

1. There exist sufficient counterexamples to your first assertion to demontrate convincingly that paying tithing does not equal financial security. There is no systematic evidence in support of this assertion and plenty of evidence against it.

2. There exist sufficient counterexamples to demonstrate convincingly that paying tithing does not, at the margin, produce greater financial security relative to not paying tithing.

Your assertion is based on a set of cherry picked anecdotes, which a more careful observation of the world would quickly reveal are anything but representative of the common human experience.

Belief that tithing = blessings may be good faith, but it is lousy empiricism.

I don't have to demonstrate that the "blessing" you observe are coincidences, you have to demonstrate they are actually blessings.

This you have not done, nor can you do it.

Placing myself outside of the Mormon experience, I can see them for what they most likely are: fortuitous coincidences, which happen millions of times a day to millions of people. The law of averages and common sense tell us that this is most likely the case.

Do you believe that blessings are real or are they just imagined?

Since I do not believe in God, it would be inconsistent for me to believe in "blessings."

I am not sure I'd use the word "imagined" in all cases (in some cases it is undoubtedly appropriate). People are by and large poor empiricists, and they tend to rely on unrepresentative anecdotes that they carefully screen out to support previously arrived at conclusions. This is not a criticism as much as an observation of human nature. (I certainly am not immune to this trait.)

I do, however, believe in fortuitous coincidences.

The ring tone on my cell phone is “Take on Me” by Ah-Ha (I’m an 80’s geek). A couple years back I was driving up to the ski resort with my daughter. The song Take on Me started playing on the radio, and at that precise moment, my phone rang; opening instrumental stanza of Take on Me on my cell phone was perfectly synchronized with the opening instrumental stanza on the radio.

A one in a million coincidence. It’ll probably never happen again in my lifetime.

Now, if this one in a million occurred to me on this day, and there are 6 billion people in the world, what are the odds that other people had one in a million occurrence that day? A little reflection would reveal that, in all likelihood, lots of people on the same day experienced one in a million coincidences. Relative to the population, one in a million occurrences on that day would be small, in absolute terms, however, they would be large—likely in the millions. More than enough to fill the grist mill of inspirational stories about the wonder of miracles.

Moreover, my guess is that most people experience a number of one-in-a-million occurrences during their lifetimes (perhaps routinely, though most will go unnoticed), some benign, some significant. The only difference is that we tend to attribute the significant ones to some divine or supernatural force. Were my experience with Ah-Ha and Take on Me more significant, and were it to happen to someone else, they would likely attribute it to God as opposed to its most likely source: mere conincidence.

I see lots of evidence that fortuitous coincidences are a common part of the human experience, but I see no corresponding evidence that otherwise seemingly fortuitous coincidences are the result of divine intervention.

I am open to evidence, although I am skeptical that it exists, and I certainly to not consider religious dogma, faith promoting stories, or personal testimony to constitute evidence.

[_maklelan]

Do you believe that blessings are real or are they just imagined?

Since I do not believe in God, it would be inconsistent for me to believe in "blessings."

So your input is not really that helpful. If you would like to start a thread about the reality of blessings, or the lack thereof, then please do so, but the question was asked if anyone had any experiences. I did. If the thread is intended only to say "nu-uh, because God doesn't exit!" to all the examples brought forth then this is a stupid thread. Is that the purpose of this thread?

I do, however, believe in fortuitous coincidences.

Those two words mean the exact same thing, just so you know. Fortuitous comes from the Latin forté, which means "by chance." From an etymological dictionary: "It means 'accidental, undesigned' not 'fortunate.'" I always see people misuse this word.

The ring tone on my cell phone is “Take on Me” by Ah-Ha (I’m an 80’s geek). A couple years back I was driving up to the ski resort with my daughter. The song Take on Me started playing on the radio, and at that precise moment, my phone rang; opening instrumental stanza of Take on Me on my cell phone was perfectly synchronized with the opening instrumental stanza on the radio.

A one in a million coincidence. It’ll probably never happen again in my lifetime.

Now, if this one in a million occurred to me on this day, and there are 6 billion people in the world, what are the odds that other people had one in a million occurrence that day? A little reflection would reveal that, in all likelihood, lots of people on the same day experienced one in a million coincidences. Relative to the population, one in a million occurrences on that day would be small, in absolute terms, however, they would be large—likely in the millions. More than enough to fill the grist mill of inspirational stories about the wonder of miracles.

Moreover, my guess is that most people experience a number of one-in-a-million occurrences during their lifetimes (perhaps routinely, though most will go unnoticed), some benign, some significant. The only difference is that we tend to attribute the significant ones to some divine or supernatural force. Were my experience with Ah-Ha and Take on Me more significant, and were it to happen to someone else, they would likely attribute it to God as opposed to its most likely source: mere conincidence.

I see lots of evidence that fortuitous coincidences are a common part of the human experience, but I see no corresponding evidence that otherwise seemingly fortuitous coincidences are the result of divine intervention.

I am open to evidence, although I am skeptical that it exists, and I certainly to not consider religious dogma, faith promoting stories, or personal testimony to constitute evidence.

I'm not really trying to offer evidence either way. I'm telling y'all my experience and what it means to me. I wish my wife liked the eighties as much as everyone should, but she hated 'em.

[_guy sajer]

Do you believe that blessings are real or are they just imagined?

Since I do not believe in God, it would be inconsistent for me to believe in "blessings."

So your input is not really that helpful. If you would like to start a thread about the reality of blessings, or the lack thereof, then please do so, but the question was asked if anyone had any experiences. I did. If the thread is intended only to say "nu-uh, because God doesn't exit!" to all the examples brought forth then this is a stupid thread. Is that the purpose of this thread?

Whoops, I hope you find it in your heart to forgive me.

That said, I don't find yours' or anyone elses' experiences compelling as evidence of "blessings." Now, if you could demonstrate to me some clear cause/effect linkages, that'd be a different story.

I do, however, believe in fortuitous coincidences.

Those two words mean the exact same thing, just so you know. Fortuitous comes from the Latin forté, which means "by chance." From an etymological dictionary: "It means 'accidental, undesigned' not 'fortunate.'" I always see people misuse this word.

Thank you for this lesson in etymology.

I've heard and seen "fortuitous" used in the context to mean something along the lines of "beneficial." (Take for example Burt in Mary Poppins.) There are such things as beneficial coincidences and non-beneficial coincidences. In any case, you know what I meant, and that's what matters.

The ring tone on my cell phone is “Take on Me” by Ah-Ha (I’m an 80’s geek). A couple years back I was driving up to the ski resort with my daughter. The song Take on Me started playing on the radio, and at that precise moment, my phone rang; opening instrumental stanza of Take on Me on my cell phone was perfectly synchronized with the opening instrumental stanza on the radio.

A one in a million coincidence. It’ll probably never happen again in my lifetime.

Now, if this one in a million occurred to me on this day, and there are 6 billion people in the world, what are the odds that other people had one in a million occurrence that day? A little reflection would reveal that, in all likelihood, lots of people on the same day experienced one in a million coincidences. Relative to the population, one in a million occurrences on that day would be small, in absolute terms, however, they would be large—likely in the millions. More than enough to fill the grist mill of inspirational stories about the wonder of miracles.

Moreover, my guess is that most people experience a number of one-in-a-million occurrences during their lifetimes (perhaps routinely, though most will go unnoticed), some benign, some significant. The only difference is that we tend to attribute the significant ones to some divine or supernatural force. Were my experience with Ah-Ha and Take on Me more significant, and were it to happen to someone else, they would likely attribute it to God as opposed to its most likely source: mere conincidence.

I see lots of evidence that fortuitous coincidences are a common part of the human experience, but I see no corresponding evidence that otherwise seemingly fortuitous coincidences are the result of divine intervention.

I am open to evidence, although I am skeptical that it exists, and I certainly to not consider religious dogma, faith promoting stories, or personal testimony to constitute evidence.

I'm not really trying to offer evidence either way. I'm telling y'all my experience and what it means to me. I wish my wife liked the eighties as much as everyone should, but she hated 'em.

Ok, understood. I am sure that they meant something to you, but you should at least be cognizant of the possibility that they don't mean what you think they mean, and in fact, they might not mean anything at all.

Well, I'd say your wife is obviously lacking in good taste, but then she married you, so that's strong evidence of the contrary. :-)

"Take on Me" is one of the classics of the 80's, although there are many (plus much silly stuff, like Boy George). Depeche Mode, New Order, Billy Idol, The Origin, The Cars, Oingo Boingo, The Police, B-52's, Echo and the Bunnymen, The Pretenders, The Ramones, The Violent Femmes, etc.; that was, and is, great music.

[_maklelan]

Whoops, I hope you find it in your heart to forgive me.

That said, I don't find yours' or anyone elses' experiences compelling as evidence of "blessings." Now, if you could demonstrate to me some clear cause/effect linkages, that'd be a different story.

I think threads tend to evolve on their own and most people (including me in this case) just follow it where it leads. I should apologize for trying to bring it back to the OP after entertaining this tangent for so long.

Thank you for this lesson in etymology.

I've heard and seen "fortuitous" used in the context to mean something along the lines of "beneficial." (Take for example Burt in Mary Poppins.) There are such things as beneficial coincidences and non-beneficial coincidences. In any case, you know what I meant, and that's what matters.

Yeah, I know what you meant. I couldn't help but share, though. It happens when you make languages your living.

Ok, understood. I am sure that they meant something to you, but you should at least be cognizant of the possibility that they don't mean what you think they mean, and in fact, they might not mean anything at all.

I'm aware of that, and I realize there may be some wishful thinking involved, but I've yet to obey the principle and be left high and dry, so I see no harm in attributing it to tithing.

Well, I'd say your wife is obviously lacking in good taste, but then she married you, so that's strong evidence of the contrary. :-)

Oh, you sly devil. You better knock it off before you make me feel bad about giving you a hard time.

"Take on Me" is one of the classics of the 80's, although there are many (plus much silly stuff, like Boy George). Depeche Mode, New Order, Billy Idol, The Origin, The Cars, Oingo Boingo, The Police, B-52's, Echo and the Bunnymen, The Pretenders, The Ramones, The Violent Femmes, etc.; that was, and is, great music.[/quote]

I have a few Billboard Top 10 CDs from the seventies and eighties. The one band whose music seems to transcend the decades is U2. Their song sfrom the eighties would be hits if they were originally released today.

[_guy sajer]

Whoops, I hope you find it in your heart to forgive me.

That said, I don't find yours' or anyone elses' experiences compelling as evidence of "blessings." Now, if you could demonstrate to me some clear cause/effect linkages, that'd be a different story.

I think threads tend to evolve on their own and most people (including me in this case) just follow it where it leads. I should apologize for trying to bring it back to the OP after entertaining this tangent for so long.

Thank you for this lesson in etymology.

I've heard and seen "fortuitous" used in the context to mean something along the lines of "beneficial." (Take for example Burt in Mary Poppins.) There are such things as beneficial coincidences and non-beneficial coincidences. In any case, you know what I meant, and that's what matters.

Yeah, I know what you meant. I couldn't help but share, though. It happens when you make languages your living.

Ok, understood. I am sure that they meant something to you, but you should at least be cognizant of the possibility that they don't mean what you think they mean, and in fact, they might not mean anything at all.

I'm aware of that, and I realize there may be some wishful thinking involved, but I've yet to obey the principle and be left high and dry, so I see no harm in attributing it to tithing.

Well, I'd say your wife is obviously lacking in good taste, but then she married you, so that's strong evidence of the contrary. :-)

Oh, you sly devil. You better knock it off before you make me feel bad about giving you a hard time.

"Take on Me" is one of the classics of the 80's, although there are many (plus much silly stuff, like Boy George). Depeche Mode, New Order, Billy Idol, The Origin, The Cars, Oingo Boingo, The Police, B-52's, Echo and the Bunnymen, The Pretenders, The Ramones, The Violent Femmes, etc.; that was, and is, great music.

I have a few Billboard Top 10 CDs from the seventies and eighties. The one band whose music seems to transcend the decades is U2. Their song sfrom the eighties would be hits if they were originally released today.[/quote]

Fair enough. Your way is not my way, but if it works for you, then I respect that.

I share your view of U2. Not many of the 80's groups have persevered into the 00's. Several of them still produce CD's (I have recent CD's by New Order and Echo and the Bunnymen--both very good IMHO), but they are by now pretty far outside the mainstream.

Oh yeah, and we cannot forget Dire Straits. Mark Knoffler is still around, but he's tinkering around in the fringe of the industry too.