Roger Morrison wrote:What ever happened to "The God Of Love?" Some interesting responses... Unfortunately many base themselves on the reality of "God of love', while unfortunately others base their response on the unreality of "God" of anything... Making a meeting of minds next to immpossible. As I see it from the sidelines--to this point. If this thread hasn't "morphed"... Nehor said, a few pages ago, into which I'll inject inbold:
... God does most of the work. RM: Like, make for rain and sunshine? I just show up for the buffet. RM: Do you mean that produced by "God's...work"??? The accusation of intellectual honesty doesn't really ring true since you are asking me to deny some of my experiences and favor the established consensus of the scientific community as the supreme method of discovering the way the world works. RM: What means of discovery do you employ? For those of us who do attribute human progress to the Sciences where are we wrong in doing so? I can't do it, I've done enough experiments on my own to know what does and does not work. RM: Will you please share the experiments, and your findings with us?
Nehor, I'm not trying to be disrespectful here, but you are not presenting a convinceing argument to others not of you mind-set. To those who are in your camp, I'm sure you have a "cheering section" too. Is it so hard to see the similarity between your current "reasonableness" and that of those primitives who cringed when "God" sent lightning & thunder to show "His" displeasure??
JAK, kudos for your patient persistance, and expertice in the science :-) of communication. You're a great teacher--to those open to instruction. However, I think your pedagogy is not easily absorbed by those steeped--that's what they do to tea to make it 'good'--in the mythologies of religion to the point of their being 'good' and faithful to their creeds, whether edicted from above or winnowed from the chaff on their own. Nehor seems to be of the latter group. A group that I have experienced for many decades, and which for some time I had somewhat agreement. So I can empathize to a degree. But as Gramps suggested, if ya ain't ready...and as Gramps intimated, had You and 'marg' been in his corner earlier, it would have made things a lot easier--as I read his posts.
It appears to me, THE stumbling block for the Nehors, and they are numerous, is to think HG/Spiritual-experience Trump's emotion. It doesn't, it is simply an ancient term used before the term "emotion" was coined... simply a 'feeling'... I expect younger folks will side step that... Warm regards, Roger
I don't expect I have a good argument. What I know is not objectively verifiable. If those stereotypical primitives even existed then yes, we have something in common. Awe. The stereotypical primitive also spent his time trying to come up with a way to placate the gods, I'm trying to be like one.
I still would maintain that Spiritual experiences differ from emotion. I've experienced the two for years and I think I know the difference.
The experiments I have done is testing the Spirit's knowledge of the future and testing it's counsel.
"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
don't expect I have a good argument. What I know is not objectively verifiable. RM: OK... If those stereotypical primitives even existed... RM: Do you not accept veridiable archeological findings and anthropology summations that they did exist??... then yes, we have something in common. Awe. The stereotypical primitive also spent his time trying to come up with a way to placate the gods, I'm trying to be like one. RM: Not following you here: "...like one..."? What do you mean, 'like a primitive' or 'like a god'?
I still would maintain that Spiritual experiences differ from emotion. I've experienced the two for years and I think I know the difference. RM: Had you not been given religious terminology, that you use, do you think you would have had the same experiences? If so, how would you have described them?
The experiments I have done is testing the Spirit's knowledge of the future and testing it's counsel. RM: Will you go into more detail, please? I'm left to my own imaginings that may be 'miles' from what You mean.
Roger Morrison wrote:Nehor said, and I inject in bold:
don't expect I have a good argument. What I know is not objectively verifiable. RM: OK... If those stereotypical primitives even existed... RM: Do you not accept veridiable archeological findings and anthropology summations that they did exist??... then yes, we have something in common. Awe. The stereotypical primitive also spent his time trying to come up with a way to placate the gods, I'm trying to be like one. RM: Not following you here: "...like one..."? What do you mean, 'like a primitive' or 'like a god'?
I still would maintain that Spiritual experiences differ from emotion. I've experienced the two for years and I think I know the difference. RM: Had you not been given religious terminology, that you use, do you think you would have had the same experiences? If so, how would you have described them?
The experiments I have done is testing the Spirit's knowledge of the future and testing it's counsel. RM: Will you go into more detail, please? I'm left to my own imaginings that may be 'miles' from what You mean.
Warm regards, Roger
Like a god for your question. I have read up on primitive religions. Most are a lot more complex than "Lightning is scary, let's burn babies and goats".
If I had no religious terminology I would describe them as best I possibly could with the words I was familiar with.
No, I'm not going to go into more detail. It's been a mistake to share with this board as much as I have. It never convinces or satisfies and I find myself attacked with horrible caricatures of what I said. It feels like what I said got trampled and then they use it to rend me.
"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
Like a god for your question. I have read up on primitive religions. Most are a lot more complex than "Lightning is scary, let's burn babies and goats".
RM: You are right about the complexity. OTOH, Judaism burned its share of "goats"...
If I had no religious terminology I would describe them as best I possibly could with the words I was familiar with. RM: Good answer ;-)
No, I'm not going to go into more detail. It's been a mistake to share with this board as much as I have. It never convinces or satisfies and I find myself attacked with horrible caricatures of what I said. It feels like what I said got trampled and then they use it to rend me.
RM: Don't be discouraged. We know the number of 'replies' is a rather small % of viewers. You never know who You might be 'confirming'. Attacking, or what might appear as attacks, unfortunately goes with "going-public". It can have a positive affect, however, when taken 'objectively'--it can toughen one up :-)
You intimated, a few days ago, that You would like to teach another brand of Jesus. If i understood you correctly??? What would that be??
Personally, if i were you, i would not consider JAK an enemy. (Maybe you don't?) He is more of a "coach" with high expectations, than anything. OTOH, centuries ago, in my early stage of self mastery ;-) a mentor advised, "...a really good/smart/savy 'enemy' can often teach you more than most of your 'friends'. They very often are no smarter than you...and they are wary of offending." For what its worth... Warm regards, Roger
Roger Morrison wrote:Thanks for your response, Nehor. You said;
Like a god for your question. I have read up on primitive religions. Most are a lot more complex than "Lightning is scary, let's burn babies and goats".
RM: You are right about the complexity. OTOH, Judaism burned its share of "goats"...
If I had no religious terminology I would describe them as best I possibly could with the words I was familiar with. RM: Good answer ;-)
No, I'm not going to go into more detail. It's been a mistake to share with this board as much as I have. It never convinces or satisfies and I find myself attacked with horrible caricatures of what I said. It feels like what I said got trampled and then they use it to rend me.
RM: Don't be discouraged. We know the number of 'replies' is a rather small % of viewers. You never know who You might be 'confirming'. Attacking, or what might appear as attacks, unfortunately goes with "going-public". It can have a positive affect, however, when taken 'objectively'--it can toughen one up :-)
You intimated, a few days ago, that You would like to teach another brand of Jesus. If I understood you correctly??? What would that be??
Personally, if I were you, I would not consider JAK an enemy. (Maybe you don't?) He is more of a "coach" with high expectations, than anything. OTOH, centuries ago, in my early stage of self mastery ;-) a mentor advised, "...a really good/smart/savy 'enemy' can often teach you more than most of your 'friends'. They very often are no smarter than you...and they are wary of offending." For what its worth... Warm regards, Roger
I don't consider JAK an enemy. I find him annoying but that's about it.
Another brand of Jesus? Not really. It's the one I was taught about by the best of my teachers from my youth. I think the LDS (and most other faiths shy away from him). One of the most poignant moments was when my Mission President was speaking of how he was disappointed that missionaries can go out and loudly proclaim salvation and tell people who have committed the vilest sins that they can be saved and believe it with all their hearts and minds. Then they commit a transgression and there's no salvation for them. They deserve their punishment and beat themselves. He ended with the question: "Will you let the Savior save you too?"
"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
Roger Morrison wrote:Nehor, I'm not trying to be disrespectful here, but you are not presenting a convinceing argument to others not of you mind-set. To those who are in your camp, I'm sure you have a "cheering section" too. Is it so hard to see the similarity between your current "reasonableness" and that of those primitives who cringed when "God" sent lightning & thunder to show "His" displeasure??
JAK, kudos for your patient persistance, and expertice in the science :-) of communication. You're a great teacher--to those open to instruction. However, I think your pedagogy is not easily absorbed by those steeped--that's what they do to tea to make it 'good'--in the mythologies of religion to the point of their being 'good' and faithful to their creeds, whether edicted from above or winnowed from the chaff on their own. Nehor seems to be of the latter group. A group that I have experienced for many decades, and which for some time I had somewhat agreement. So I can empathize to a degree. But as Gramps suggested, if ya ain't ready...and as Gramps intimated, had You and 'marg' been in his corner earlier, it would have made things a lot easier--as I read his posts.
It appears to me, THE stumbling block for the Nehors, and they are numerous, is to think HG/Spiritual-experience Trump's emotion. It doesn't, it is simply an ancient term used before the term "emotion" was coined... simply a 'feeling'... I expect younger folks will side step that... Warm regards, Roger
Roger stated Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:52 pm: It appears to me, THE stumbling block for the Nehors, and they are numerous, is to think HG/Spiritual-experience Trump's emotion. It doesn't, it is simply an ancient term used before the term "emotion" was coined... simply a 'feeling'... I expect younger folks will side step that...
That view of the Nehors continues to substitute religious myth for established fact. No evidence supports claims for “Holy Spirit” or for “spiritual-experience.” The inventions are products of superstition/myth from hundreds/thousands of years prior to the present.