Three Powerful Books

[_I have a question]

We are at an impasse because honor has the upper hand as it relates to the nature of the argument, which I’ve explained earlier. The secular offense is ruthlessly oppositional to theism. Typically there are no holds barred. I’m not willing to get in that kind of a scrap when it comes to defending my belief in God, knowing that I am at a distinct disadvantage as I try to explain to a materialist what is often the unexplainable in a strictly materialistic sense.

So compare the strength of your spiritual evidences probability to say, a Jehovah's Witnesses spiritual strength, or a Catholics, or a Muslims. What is the probability that your spiritual evidence is accurate and that your Church is true and that your beliefs are the sole way to get to live with God for eternity, and that theirs isn't?

What is the probability that Ellen White had visions which led her to start the one true Church?
What is the probability that Joseph Smith had visions which led him to start the one true Church?

If you score them differently, explain why...

[_mentalgymnast]

In particular the idea that "we just can't usefully talk about this" seems inconsistent to me as a Christian view. It sounds like saying, "The kingdom of God is far away from you." That's not what Jesus preached.

Jesus taught that we should seek FIRST the kingdom of God. Otherwise, in my opinion, we move farther and farther away. The language of the Spirit then becomes foreign. We may hear it, but it doesn’t penetrate our heart as it may have once done.

Ephesians 4

17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
20 But ye have not so learned Christ;
21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

And if we’ve never heard the language of the Spirit in the first place, it would be foreign to us until we seek it. The scriptures teach also that to the natural man the things of God are foolishness and are far from his heart.

Or in other words, the things of God just don’t make sense. There is a language/understanding barrier.

Honor may have at one time understood that language of the Spirit, but he has forgotten it or more likely reinterpreted it as being something else.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

We are at an impasse because honor has the upper hand as it relates to the nature of the argument, which I’ve explained earlier. The secular offense is ruthlessly oppositional to theism. Typically there are no holds barred. I’m not willing to get in that kind of a scrap when it comes to defending my belief in God, knowing that I am at a distinct disadvantage as I try to explain to a materialist what is often the unexplainable in a strictly materialistic sense.

So compare the strength of your spiritual evidences...

How would you suggest this is done?

[to a] a Jehovah's Witnesses spiritual strength, or a Catholics, or a Muslims.

Again, how would you suggest this be measured third person?

What is the probability that your spiritual evidence...

Define what you mean by spiritual evidence. Strictly feelings? Intellectual knowledge? A mix? I will say that feelings manufactured through the central nervous system can be interpreted to mean almost anything. So I would be careful going there exclusively if I’m a religionist of any stripe.

...is accurate and that your Church is true and that your beliefs are the sole way to get to live with God for eternity, and that theirs isn't?

It is you, first person, that would have to determine that.

What is the probability that Ellen White had visions which led her to start the one true Church?

I cannot speak to that.

What is the probability that Joseph Smith had visions which led him to start the one true Church?

From having spent a good deal of time and effort trying to determine the answer to this question I would put the probability very high.

If you score them differently, explain why...

I can only score...accurately...that in which I am familiar with first person. I will let a Jehovah’s Witness, Muslim, Catholic, or any other religious person speak for themselves.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

In particular the idea that "we just can't usefully talk about this" seems inconsistent to me as a Christian view. It sounds like saying, "The kingdom of God is far away from you." That's not what Jesus preached.

Jesus taught that we should seek FIRST the kingdom of God. Otherwise, in my opinion, we move farther and farther away. The language of the Spirit then becomes foreign. We may hear it, but it doesn’t penetrate our heart as it may have once done.

Ephesians 4

17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
20 But ye have not so learned Christ;
21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

And if we’ve never heard the language of the Spirit in the first place, it would be foreign to us until we seek it. The scriptures teach also that to the natural man the things of God are foolishness and are far from his heart.

Or in other words, the things of God just don’t make sense. There is a language/understanding barrier.

Honor may have at one time understood that language of the Spirit, but he has forgotten it or more likely reinterpreted it as being something else.

Regards,
MG

Oh dear — your cult's belief system is patently nutty. Not only do you have little in the way of argument for it, there also seems to be a great deal of evidence against it. If you want, nevertheless, to get lots of people to believe it, what do you do?

Why not appeal to mystery? By appealing to mystery, you can portray your critics as arrogant, unspiritual know-it-alls who think they have the answers to everything. You will appear humble and spiritual by acknowledging that, when it comes to the deepest questions, we must acknowledge our powers of reason have their limits. You can neutralize your opponent's use of reason, and make yourself look good and them look bad all at the same time!

There are several versions of this move, including:

(i) “Well, YOU explain it, then!” <SNIPPED>

(ii) “Beyond reason to decide.” <SNIPPED>

These moves are designed to render religious beliefs immune to rational criticism.

But the truth is that, just as a detective who does not yet know who dunnit may still be able rationally to rule out certain suspects, so atheists unable to explain why the universe exists may still be able rationally to rule out certain answers. As even a religious person will typically admit there’s overwhelming evidence the world was not created by an evil God, so they must also admit there could be overwhelming evidence it was not created by a good God either.

But then it’s not something it’s necessarily beyond reason to decide.

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2009/02/ ... stery.html

[bolding added]

An appeal to mystery is a logical fallacy which argues, as an explanation for something, that there can be no explanation.
The fallacy is a an appeal to ignorance and an informal fallacy

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_mystery

[_mentalgymnast]

I’ve already invested the time explaining why this isn’t going to go anywhere. Juggernaut.

Excuse my ignorance. What do you mean by 'Juggernaut,' in this context?

Was my answer satisfactory?

Regards,
MG

[_Morley]

Excuse my ignorance. What do you mean by 'Juggernaut,' in this context?

Was my answer satisfactory?

Regards,
MG

Absolutely. Thank you for the explanation. I'm not sure it applies to this framework, but thank you.

[_Morley]

I can only score...accurately...that in which I am familiar with first person. I will let a Jehovah’s Witness, Muslim, Catholic, or any other religious person speak for themselves.

That's strange, because you seem pretty willing to 'score' honor's experience.

Honor may have at one time understood that language of the Spirit, but he has forgotten it or more likely reinterpreted it as being something else.

Perhaps you should let him speak for himself, too.

[_Morley]

And if we’ve never heard the language of the Spirit in the first place, it would be foreign to us until we seek it. The scriptures teach also that to the natural man the things of God are foolishness and are far from his heart.

Or in other words, the things of God just don’t make sense. There is a language/understanding barrier.

Wow.

[_Physics Guy]

Jesus taught that we should seek FIRST the kingdom of God. Otherwise, in my opinion, we move farther and farther away. The language of the Spirit then becomes foreign. We may hear it, but it doesn’t penetrate our heart as it may have once done.

"Seek first the kingdom" is not the same as "first seek the kingdom". It does not mean that your seeking of the kingdom is a condition that you have to fulfill first before anything else can happen.

The verses about seeking first the kingdom of God say that the kingdom should be one's first priority because everything else one might need will come with it as an automatic bonus and so seeking the kingdom has zero opportunity cost. I don't see how this implies that one can move too far away from the kingdom to learn anything about it.

[_Morley]

MG. Let's see if I have this.

You speak the language of science, philosophy, and the spirit so can understand everything.

We just speak the language of the science and philosophy but can't understand the language of the spirit so we can't understand anything you're saying when you speak spirit language.

You and those of your tribe are superior in your understanding because of this.

Please correct me where I've got it wrong.