The Nature of the Holy Spirit

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Rational Explanations Prevail

Post by _JAK »

Inconceivable wrote:You're killing me Jak.

I agree, the tornado missed a house. Quite meaningless to the Baptist with the demo'd one next door. A lot of emotion and conjecture there. Not what I'm talking about at all. Neither am I referring to the indoctrination of radical Islamists that have their sights set on sharing virgins with Brigham Young.

I have received distinct impressions while minding my own business. I have witnessed and seen with my own eyes the consequences of either using the information or rejecting it. To anyone that did not witness it could only sum it up as an Faith-Promoting Rumor (faith promoting rumor). I'm ok with that. That is my evaluation as well.

For example (from one of the incidents I related in another thread). I received a distinct impression to slow down and take it easy. I dropped to 65. The morning traffic was quite heavy and I would not have gotten much further ahead than a few hundred yards. Several miles down the road I watch an SUV slide sideways across 2 lanes till the front tire pinned the shoulder and flipped violently end over end. There is little doubt in my mind that in my own conservative calculations that I would have found myself at that precise area had I not reacted positively to this "impression". The impression was simply what it was. I can draw all sorts of conclusions as to "why", but all I do know for sure is that I got a heads up, and I am here in one piece.

Obviously there is no conceivable way for you to quantify my experience. I'm not offended. But because I'm just as human as you are, I see little reason why you would not be entitled on occasion to the same treatment so you can have your own. Don't be surprised if I poo poo it. It's not mine, it's yours.

Now, on the other hand. Last May, while travelling to the Lake we came over a small hill to see that a vehicle had just come to a stop on it's roof in the middle of our path - occuring only several hundred yards ahead as well. I received no impressions. There were some interesting circumstances that impeded our progress that placed us where we were to the timing of this horrific and emotionally charged scene - but I can make only conjecture here of the coincidence. And have little interest in doing so.


With 6 billion people on the planet, life is filled with coincidences. In battle, one soldier is killed, another looses both legs and another has no injuries.

None of your stories support your claim of “spiritual.” They support the fact of propinquity. Faith-based-conclusions are unreliable. You might have been killed. You weren’t. But people are killed every day on the roads. They are seriously injured. They also have narrow escapes. None of that supports a leap to conclusion of “spiritual” anything.

Religious indoctrination tends to make people believe the irrational. Religious indoctrination short-circuits the thinking process. I understand that you were making no reference to Islamic terrorists. The point of the reference was to clarify for you that every religious group, cult, sect, or denomination tends to indoctrinate mindless followers to believe various things which are contrary to fact and contrary to evidence.

You are not Muslim (I presume). Had you been born in a Muslim country and raised Muslim, you would likely believe as any of them believe. Had you been raised a Hindu, you would likely believe as any of them believe. That was the point of the reference. Religious myth impairs the mind.

It was also the point of the reference to demonstrate that religious myths are unreliable. They disagree.

Your escape from a deadly accident is not evidence for some supernatural intervention. No evidence has established such claims. The fact that people make such claims is evidence that they have been successfully indoctrinated. Keep sharply in mind that the dead tell no tales of miraculous protection. Hence, only those who escape to tell their story have a voice. That’s a most important fact to keep at the conscious level.

Further, the most successful indoctrination is that which goes unrecognized by the one who has been indoctrinated. As one recognizes that he has been or is being indoctrinated, he becomes free to employ rational thinking.

Propinquity. You were in the right place at the right time to escape “in one piece.” Had the experience had a different ending, you would not be writing here. Those six miners trapped in the coal mine will likely not escape death in the mine. Some in the same mine, but at a different location, did escape. They were in the right place at the right time to escape. They can tell a story.

Inconceivable stated:
There were some interesting circumstances that impeded our progress that placed us where we were to the timing of this horrific and emotionally charged scene - but I can make only conjecture here of the coincidence. And have little interest in doing so.


“Conjecture” is right. Propinquity. You were where you were as a result of previous circumstances. The “emotionally charged scene” was also a result of previous circumstances. I can presume that numerous vehicles travel the road to the lake you describe.

Denial is a technique implicit in various religious myths. There are rational explanations for both your arrival at the scene and the arrival of those in the over-turned car. I suggest that you should be interested the details in which you claim you “have little interest.”

Propinquity. You might have passed through minutes or even seconds before the scene you observed.

Consider the people who crossed the bridge in Minneapolis just before the bridge collapsed. It was estimated that 120,000 vehicles crossed that bridge every 24 hours. Some missed the collapse by hours, days, even months (for people who are generally not there). Likely, some who went down with the bridge were there for the first time just passing through and just happened to be on the bridge when it went down.

Some who crossed that bridge twice a day were NOT on or near the bridge when it went down. Somebody was late and missed the tragedy. Somebody else was early and also missed the tragedy. For the 100,000 people who drove vehicles on that bridge on that day, there is a story about where they were and how they happened to miss the tragedy. The people who were killed tell no story. The kids who got off the school bus each have a story. By a second or two, they missed the tragedy.

So that in which you say you “have little interest” is precisely that about which you should think. My discussion here is intended to bring that to your intellect and to by-pass your indoctrination which misleads you assume some force for which there is no evidence.

You have stories. Most people have stories of near misses, close calls, or even stories of being in a tragic event which they survived. Propinquity.

We have hundreds of thousands of people in the US. By accident things happen which were not planned as many people occupy the same spaces (but not at the same time).

Your stories give no support to some irrational other world as you appear to wish. No story you told appears to be without rational explanation in a step by step construction of the time-frames and the events.

To believe otherwise is tooth fairy talk.

JAK
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

The Challenge to Think

Post by _JAK »

The Nehor wrote:JAK has exposed me, I'm going to go sit in a corner and drool now.

Another inappropriate response.

However, it demonstrates that you have no well-thought rejoinder.

Perhaps you could use your brain, your intellect to think.

JAK
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Re: Nehor's Evasion

Post by _The Nehor »

JAK wrote:
Your “suggesting” is flawed.

I suggest, Nehor, that you are a fraud.

Your claim is absurd.

You have been indoctrinated to reject rational thinking.

You don’t demonstrate that you understand that “your faith” even since the time of J. Smith’s mythology is far from united.

Again, you demonstrate that you’re disingenuous.

Your indoctrination in religious mythology appears to preclude the function of thinking skills.


This is all not saying that I'm a moron?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Nehor's Evasion

Post by _JAK »

The Nehor wrote:
JAK wrote:
Your “suggesting” is flawed.

I suggest, Nehor, that you are a fraud.

Your claim is absurd.

You have been indoctrinated to reject rational thinking.

You don’t demonstrate that you understand that “your faith” even since the time of J. Smith’s mythology is far from united.

Again, you demonstrate that you’re disingenuous.

Your indoctrination in religious mythology appears to preclude the function of thinking skills.


This is all not saying that I'm a moron?


No. I was not saying that. I said what I intended. I did not use your language here, nor does it accurately reflect what I stated.

JAK
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Re: Nehor's Evasion

Post by _The Nehor »

JAK wrote:
The Nehor wrote:
JAK wrote:
Your “suggesting” is flawed.

I suggest, Nehor, that you are a fraud.

Your claim is absurd.

You have been indoctrinated to reject rational thinking.

You don’t demonstrate that you understand that “your faith” even since the time of J. Smith’s mythology is far from united.

Again, you demonstrate that you’re disingenuous.

Your indoctrination in religious mythology appears to preclude the function of thinking skills.


This is all not saying that I'm a moron?


No. I was not saying that. I said what I intended. I did not use your language here, nor does it accurately reflect what I stated.

JAK


Those were all pulled directly from your post.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_Inconceivable
_Emeritus
Posts: 3405
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:44 am

Post by _Inconceivable »

Jak blathered with conviction of a religious zealot:

Your escape from a deadly accident is not evidence for some supernatural intervention. No evidence has established such claims. The fact that people make such claims is evidence that they have been successfully indoctrinated. Keep sharply in mind that the dead tell no tales of miraculous protection. Hence, only those who escape to tell their story have a voice. That’s a most important fact to keep at the conscious level.


Well, if you say so. ok.


meanie. :(
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

Hi Nehor, you said:



I am suggesting that scientific knowledge has little, if any connection to happiness. Part of my faith teaches that the happiest people on Earth were the city of Enoch who knows how long ago and a Nephite civilization roughly 2000 years ago.

I agree with you regarding discovery being one of the key aspects of our lives but limiting that only to scientific discovery would make scientists the only fulfilled people on the planet.


JAK has already responded to this post of yours, quite well ;-)... You seem to have jumped to a conclusion that was not intended. Why would you think I was limiting discovery only to science? Although that is a very BROAD avenue, from the physical to psyche...

Further areas of Quest have to do with understanding our religious history and fixations that have not always been in the best interest of humanity. In spite of theological claims to the contrary. That might be a good place for you to do more investigative study...

I respectfully suggest the coincidental experiences one might have--and we all have them--have nothing to do with religion or church. Personally i cannot attribute them...i just am glad to have them :-)

The city of Enoch and the Nephite civilization are mythical places and times that are without substanciation beyond their Mormon story. One that i too believed for several decades.

But it is believed at the peril of reality... It is simply one of a thousand roads of illusion; enjoy it for what you get from it... Warm regards, Roger
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Show Us the Evidence

Post by _JAK »

thestyleguy stated:
I wish I could write better: I think that ninety-nine percent of things people attribute to God is just their imagination. I think that one percent of the time some outside force is involved. I have no evidence just my own subjective experience. My pursuit today is the Mormon church and if it is God's church or just another church. Certainly from what is written it appears that many, many groups of people have thought that during their lifetime that Jesus would return, from first century christians to people in the fourteen or fifteen hundreds to Joseph Smith's time to today.


A few things you might consider as you reflect upon your own statement.

How did you arrive at such a specific “ninety-nine percent”?
What’s your basis for “I think that one percent of the time some outside force is involved”?

Why not 98% and 2%? Why not 100% imagination for “some outside force”?

No evidence for “outside force” has been established. It’s a guess to ascribe any event or sequence of events to mysterious influence.

thestyleguy stated:
My pursuit today is the Mormon church and if it is God's church or just another church.


A most elementary study of the evolution of religious mythologies should make that an easy issue to resolve. No evidence for “God” has been established. Historically, the evolution of religious myths with claims for gods proceeded:

Many gods to fewer gods to a very few gods to one God

Only when pre-historic man developed a recognition of other than self and only as cultures along with language emerged did humans construct/invent religious myths as a device to explain what they did not understand.

The evolution of religious myths can be documented several thousands of years in the past.

Read as much as you are able from a few of many websites I could offer.

Early Humans

First Humans

Homo erectus

Evolution of Humans & Religion

The God Delusion

The emergence/evolution of religious mythologies can be documented to some extent. Of course, the farther back in human history we go, the less reliable the evidence tends to be.

Generally, religious mythologies grew from simple stories which attempted to explain. They did not explain. But, having limited or no actual information, people could subscribe to religious myth because it satisfied them at the moment.

Historically, religious myth has been discredited as science has discovered and documented and tested evidence which really does explain.

Religious mythologies don’t agree. Recognizing that fact makes none of them reliable. They not only contradict one another, they are self-contradictory as well.

thestyleguy stated:
Certainly from what is written it appears that many, many groups of people have thought that during their lifetime that Jesus would return, from first century christians to people in the fourteen or fifteen hundreds to Joseph Smith's time to today.


There is no sound evidence for the Jesus depicted in the Bible as authentic. Not a single word about the alleged Jesus of the Bible was written until 30 to 110 years after the alleged claims. That means no direct quotes are reliable. The Bible was/is an accumulation of writings which was controlled by and orchestrated by the power structures which produced it and used it to extend their own influence and control.

No evidence supports the belief for a “return” of Jesus. Early Christians perceived the “return” to be “soon.” In their time, soon meant a matter of days or weeks -- certainly not centuries. The mythology was wrong and unreliable.

JAK
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Re: Nehor's Evasion

Post by _JAK »

The Nehor wrote:
JAK wrote:
The Nehor wrote:
JAK wrote:
Your “suggesting” is flawed.

I suggest, Nehor, that you are a fraud.

Your claim is absurd.

You have been indoctrinated to reject rational thinking.

You don’t demonstrate that you understand that “your faith” even since the time of J. Smith’s mythology is far from united.

Again, you demonstrate that you’re disingenuous.

Your indoctrination in religious mythology appears to preclude the function of thinking skills.


This is all not saying that I'm a moron?


No. I was not saying that. I said what I intended. I did not use your language here, nor does it accurately reflect what I stated.

JAK


Those were all pulled directly from your post.


Nehor,

Please review your statement on the post. (This forum is not as user-friendly as some, so I’ll review in this response.)

Nehor stated:
This is all not saying that I'm a moron?


JAK responded to that statement in that post thus:

“No. I was not saying that. I said what I intended. I did not use your language here, nor does it accurately reflect what I stated.”

While your quotations from me were correct, I was not saying that you were “a moron.”

The only addition you made was the post was this:

Nehor stated:
This is all not saying that I'm a moron?


What I stated previously were comments in the context of a much longer analysis of previous posts of yours.

At present, you have failed to address the analysis and questions directly related to your statements.

JAK
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Roger's Comment

Post by _JAK »

Roger,

You are reading me correctly.

Roger stated:
The city of Enoch and the Nephite civilization are mythical places and times that are without substanciation beyond their Mormon story. One that I too believed for several decades.

But it is believed at the peril of reality... It is simply one of a thousand roads of illusion; enjoy it for what you get from it.


Exactly so. The fundamental analysis which I suggested is that mythologies are unreliable. They do not agree. In addition, they tend to be self-contradictory not only in the particulars but in the broader context as well.

JAK
Post Reply