Spirituality or just emotion...?

[_Themis]

I would also offer that what man has discovered about the Creation creates what they think is true one day until someone comes along with a new discovery which then changes previously held truths. And round and round we go.

You would be incorrect. This tells me you have little understanding of science and scientific methodology. Science does not claim any absolute truths. Many discoveries have not really changed at all. Newtonian physics would be one of them even though many ignorant of this think it has changed. Now the age of the earth has changed or gotten more accurate as more information has come available. Scientists tend to not think they know it all, or that any theory is set in stone. This is not a weakness, but a strength.

The spiritual experience, though, once we learn to discern the Holy Ghost's witnesses of spiritual Truth is ONLY experienced spiritually.

I am sure other with different interpretations think they have got it down as well. I have already said the spiritual experience is mainly internal, even though the five sense sometimes have a role.

Whereas physical "truths" are experienced with physical senses, spiritual Truths are not; though a spiritual truth results in physical reactions. The difference is that we experience them first NOT with our physical senses, but with our spirit self.

Well, they are internal, so our physical being are experiencing them. This internal involves feelings, thoughts and emotions. Emotions have a major effect on how we react and think, but we first have to interpret them, which is done by what we want or have been taught to do. One thing to notice is that LDS interpret them with LDS belief, as do Catholics with catholic beliefs. This is common for which ever religion or group. Most of them tend to think they are the ones getting it right, that they have learned how to properly discern the correct message. :)

You don't know this at all. BY saying that you have to have faith is saying you don't know at all. It's just a belief, and no offense, not a very good one. This is why we have so many conflicting beliefs that people ask us to believe on faith. Give us a real reason to have faith in your claims over the thousands of others asking to have faith in different claims.

Faith is a living and active thing. It is not a one time action.

I have faith, just not your religious faith at this time. I use to, so I do understand it.

If we are progressing spiritually, then our faith is growing as well.

This can be said for many different and conflicting faiths.

You have shown how it is that you can have faith in a physical claim made by a man.

All claims are made by man. Joseph made a number of claims.

You reason with their claim and make your own choice as to whether or not you will believe their claim. You test it; and, based upon your own previous experiences and world view, make a determination about it. You are using the same method on spiritual claims made by man. However, you will never have a manifestation of a spiritual experience while using your worldly methods.

I used the same methods as a believer as you did. The problem is that it is just a worldly method as well.

You will not find a spiritual "reason" from ME. You must sincerely seek it from GOD. He will generally not give you a spiritual experience if that is not what you desire, as this would interfere with your free will. Therefore, you will receive what it is you are sincerely looking for. If you do not seek Him, He will not reveal Himself. I do not have the ability to reveal Him to you.

I have been an active believing member for most of my life. I sought God. I had a strong desire to know him and receive the HG in my life. I believed that I had. I now think it was internal experiences, and I interpreted them as I was taught or wants to. You are doing the same.

From a physical standpoint, physical experiences do at first appear reliable. However, there is a huge spread of opinion as to the interpretations of what man experiences in the physical. As a for instance, you can ask ten people who witnessed the same automobile accident, and you will likely get ten different stories.

I never said it was perfect, but it certainly is more reliable. You will get more agreement on those witnesses then you will if you give them all the same internal experience. That is the point.

Actually, once more I agree with you because among those who are attached only to the world, many WILL argue that if you don't agree with them, then you are obviously incorrect.

This is what you are doing. You assert things as though you know they are true, but you really don't know. You and I have no idea what our bodies are capable of producing.

Those who argue this way about their religious beliefs still have one foot firmly planted in the world which is currently unshakable according to the tradition of what they have been taught about what they believe. They may not have actually experienced the spiritual, or have not developed their discernment...but depend upon what others have told them; thus limiting themselves to pre-conceived notions about the spiritual world. Actually, this is quite normal. Faith and seeking need to continue and be added upon in order to evolve and grow, as evidenced by how we are all at our own personal point in our journey.

Everyone but your group is worldly. :)

Now again I like the spiritual experience. I just realize it is not reliable about telling us of the world around us. This is fairly easy to see if you are objective enough and get rid of some of your bias.

Here is a good quote from Tarski

It is simple.
The (usually inchoate) epistemology implicit in the notion of a private inner witness from the Holy Ghost just can't be made to work.
Knowledge has to make reference to publically available evidence and norms of rationality--at least in principle. You have to have good reason to say you know something.

It is no wonder that contradictions arise between different people's revelations. The number of religions and diverse metaphysical beliefes that arise because some body somewhere had a kind of inner mystical experience is huge.
Good methods converge. Bad methods diverge.
Thus we do have some good reasons to deny this notion of personal revelation as it is normally concieved.
In some sense then, what we know is that it doesn't work.

It is amazing that people just can't apply this lesson to their own relgion.

[_jo1952]

You would be incorrect. This tells me you have little understanding of science and scientific methodology. Science does not claim any absolute truths. Many discoveries have not really changed at all. Newtonian physics would be one of them even though many ignorant of this think it has changed. Now the age of the earth has changed or gotten more accurate as more information has come available. Scientists tend to not think they know it all, or that any theory is set in stone. This is not a weakness, but a strength.

You have just exactly confirmed what I claimed. In fact, I perceive that although you insist that scientists tend to not think they know it all, or that any theory is set in stone, to be an exaggeration. There are many theories which ARE now accepted as truth, even though they remain unproven. Thus, even in accordance with your own claim, this IS a weakness. Do not assume that because I disagree with you that I have not studied scientific theories. Also, I believe that what once started out as a noble effort to keep science truthful in its projected theories, has now become corrupted with the same types of problems and greed which all of man's undertakings eventually evolve into. As a realist and historian, I have found that I can place little credibility in the scientific peer review process.

I am sure other with different interpretations think they have got it down as well. I have already said the spiritual experience is mainly internal, even though the five sense sometimes have a role.

We do generally experience spiritual events internally; however, their origin is not of the physical world. If you will do some research into quantum mechanics and particle physics, I believe you would be surprised at the number of scientists who specialize in those studies who have come to believe in God as a result; however, other scientific studies have generally not produced believers unless the person was already a believer before they began. A problem I see in many believing scientists, is that somewhere along the line, they often begin to idolize the Creation instead of the Creator. This causes them to lose faith in scripture which they rationalize away with their own puffed up academia. I have heard one LDS poster on this board make the claim that as a scientist, he worships at the alter of science; clearly, this means he idolizes the Creation even though it breaks the first of the Ten Commandments. He has no problem rewriting scripture according to his own interpretation of scientific findings. Yet there are many non-peer reviewable scientists who interpret findings differently. They are dissed by the scientific community because their interpretations would destroy funding for pet projects because they support scripture and keep them focused on worshipping the Creator.

Well, they are internal, so our physical being are experiencing them. This internal involves feelings, thoughts and emotions. Emotions have a major effect on how we react and think, but we first have to interpret them, which is done by what we want or have been taught to do. One thing to notice is that LDS interpret them with LDS belief, as do Catholics with catholic beliefs. This is common for which ever religion or group. Most of them tend to think they are the ones getting it right, that they have learned how to properly discern the correct message. :)

Our physical being experiences them as a result of a Spirit (Holy Ghost) to spirit (our spiritual self) encounter. The physical is reacting to the spiritual experience in the only way it can....physically. However, it is our spiritual self which is beginning to awaken which causes us to seek further and further spiritual progress and knowing. This can only take place from a spiritual source. This spiritual knowing and growth extends beyond basic tenets of various institutionalized religious "beliefs", as the spiritual understanding of those beliefs is made known to the spiritually in-tuned individual. It does not matter what institution of religion they hang their hat on. It is the institution of a religion which interferes and limits a spiritual journey if the individual does not allow the spiritual self to separate itself from the physical self. This is what Joseph Smith experienced and taught. Brigham Young was very fearful that members of the Church would limit themselves to only what our leaders had to say, rather than learning and experiencing for themselves. His prophetic fears are being realized today.

I have faith, just not your religious faith at this time. I use to, so I do understand it.

What has happened to cause you to change your mind?

This can be said for many different and conflicting faiths.

And I have explained this phenomenon. You have chosen to not agree with me. This is fine; it merely defines where you are in your journey----it does not mean that you are right and I am wrong, or that I am right and you are wrong. We are only at a different point in our knowing.

All claims are made by man. Joseph made a number of claims.

All prophets are men - but when they make the disclaimer that their words are inspired of God, we should seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost for spiritual confirmation.

I used the same methods as a believer as you did. The problem is that it is just a worldly method as well.

As long as we are in the world, we will need to learn to discern the difference between a worldly source of knowledge vs Spirit to spirit knowledge. That is the way God set things up for us in this world - these are boundaries that have been pre-set.

I have been an active believing member for most of my life. I sought God. I had a strong desire to know him and receive the HG in my life. I believed that I had. I now think it was internal experiences, and I interpreted them as I was taught or wants to. You are doing the same.

You do not know me. I was having spiritual experiences as a child. They were distinct from physical experiences. I was not raised in the Church. Spirit to spirit communication does not exist inside of religion.

I never said it was perfect, but it certainly is more reliable. You will get more agreement on those witnesses then you will if you give them all the same internal experience. That is the point.

That is your observation and opinion. It is a physical and worldly based claim. Since it comes from the world, it makes sense that it would be based in the world.

This is what you are doing. You assert things as though you know they are true, but you really don't know. You and I have no idea what our bodies are capable of producing.

I know the difference between a physical experience and a spiritual experience. I am sure there is much more I can learn spiritually as I do not know the limitations placed upon me by my physical body. I expect that upon the death of my mortal body, I will learn much, much more. We are eternal beings.

Everyone but your group is worldly. :)

Even though I have always had spiritual experiences, I used to be limited by what I believed was possible. However, by a continuing sincere desire to seek God, my spirit continues to awaken. I am not a part of any special group. An individual can experience this on-going awakening regardless of what church they belong to. What is awesome is that once this takes place, we recognize one another when we meet independent of the religious institution we choose to be a part of.

Now again I like the spiritual experience. I just realize it is not reliable about telling us of the world around us. This is fairly easy to see if you are objective enough and get rid of some of your bias.

The spiritual experience is meant to teach us about the Kingdom of God, not about the world around us. The Creation can, indeed, tell us something about our Creator; but the purpose of the Creation is to give us the opportunity to exercise faith in the unseen, and not the other way around.

I am sorry, but I do not agree with Tarski.

Love,

jo

[_Natsunekko]

In fact, I perceive that although you insist that scientists tend to not think they know it all, or that any theory is set in stone, to be an exaggeration. There are many theories which ARE now accepted as truth, even though they remain unproven.

Can you give some specific, concrete examples of current scientific theories that are accepted as truth even though they remain unproven?

As a realist and historian, I have found that I can place little credibility in the scientific peer review process.

Can you give us some specific, concrete examples of why you place so little credibility in the scientific peer review process?

The physical is reacting to the spiritual experience in the only way it can....physically.

Interesting. What exactly are the specific physical indications of a spiritual experience?

Are you a Mormon?

[_Themis]

You have just exactly confirmed what I claimed. In fact, I perceive that although you insist that scientists tend to not think they know it all, or that any theory is set in stone, to be an exaggeration. There are many theories which ARE now accepted as truth, even though they remain unproven. Thus, even in accordance with your own claim, this IS a weakness. Do not assume that because I disagree with you that I have not studied scientific theories. Also, I believe that what once started out as a noble effort to keep science truthful in its projected theories, has now become corrupted with the same types of problems and greed which all of man's undertakings eventually evolve into. As a realist and historian, I have found that I can place little credibility in the scientific peer review process.

It's obvious you are anti science when it disagrees with cherished beliefs. That is fairly common. Science is not perfect, since it is made of of people. I still think you lack real knowledge about science. Not all theories have the same weight in evidence, but perhaps you could provide a CFR on which you mean are unproven.

We do generally experience spiritual events internally; however, their origin is not of the physical world.

This is your belief, but you do not really know becuase you also don't know what the body is capable of producing on it's own.

If you will do some research into quantum mechanics and particle physics, I believe you would be surprised at the number of scientists who specialize in those studies who have come to believe in God as a result; however, other scientific studies have generally not produced believers unless the person was already a believer before they began.

Many good scientists are religious. You are now arguing from authority. Maybe you could show your sources here as well.

A problem I see in many believing scientists, is that somewhere along the line, they often begin to idolize the Creation instead of the Creator.

How could they do something like this. LOL Maybe they have better insights due to their specializations.

This causes them to lose faith in scripture which they rationalize away with their own puffed up academia.

Again you are reveling your bias.

I have heard one LDS poster on this board make the claim that as a scientist, he worships at the alter of science; clearly, this means he idolizes the Creation even though it breaks the first of the Ten Commandments. He has no problem rewriting scripture according to his own interpretation of scientific findings.

Perhaps if you want to take things to an extreme. I remember someone who interpreted all graven images to be all pictures, statues, etc.

Yet there are many non-peer reviewable scientists who interpret findings differently. They are dissed by the scientific community because their interpretations would destroy funding for pet projects because they support scripture and keep them focused on worshipping the Creator.

This at least tells me you are not really studying science, but going to pseudoscience religious sites for your information. What the heck is a non-peer reviewable scientist?

Our physical being experiences them as a result of a Spirit (Holy Ghost) to spirit (our spiritual self) encounter. The physical is reacting to the spiritual experience in the only way it can....physically. However, it is our spiritual self which is beginning to awaken which causes us to seek further and further spiritual progress and knowing. This can only take place from a spiritual source.

I love how we think our interpretations are somehow knowing. This is just a simple assertion you don't actually know but believe.

This spiritual knowing and growth extends beyond basic tenets of various institutionalized religious "beliefs", as the spiritual understanding of those beliefs is made known to the spiritually in-tuned individual. It does not matter what institution of religion they hang their hat on. It is the institution of a religion which interferes and limits a spiritual journey if the individual does not allow the spiritual self to separate itself from the physical self.

Another words you are right and everyone else who has a different conclusion form their expereinces are wrong and are not in-tune.

This is what Joseph Smith experienced and taught. Brigham Young was very fearful that members of the Church would limit themselves to only what our leaders had to say, rather than learning and experiencing for themselves. His prophetic fears are being realized today.

Joseph was making a religion, and I think he knew that feelings and emotions were an important part of getting a following. Revivals can show this. :)

What has happened to cause you to change your mind?

Two things, and without both I would still believe. First and probably most important is the realization that the spiritual experience is probably not from some divine being, but ourselves(and possibly the environment). WE have no idea what the body is capable of, and if we look around us we see people in other religions having spiritual experiences. The only difference is how they interpret those expereinces. You and I are not likely to get lucky enough to have the right one.

The second is all the evidence that shows Joseph was making it up. I think religion was important to him, but the evidence clearly shows he was making up the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, polygamy, zelph, etc.

And I have explained this phenomenon. You have chosen to not agree with me. This is fine; it merely defines where you are in your journey----it does not mean that you are right and I am wrong, or that I am right and you are wrong. We are only at a different point in our knowing.

I am not saying in any absolute way you are wrong, but certainly you feel you know, you don't actually know. There is a big difference here, and one I see from people with very different beliefs.

All prophets are men - but when they make the disclaimer that their words are inspired of God, we should seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost for spiritual confirmation.

Except you don't know if the HG is just a production coming from you or the environment.

As long as we are in the world, we will need to learn to discern the difference between a worldly source of knowledge vs Spirit to spirit knowledge. That is the way God set things up for us in this world - these are boundaries that have been pre-set.

Again you just think this is true, but you again do not really know. You feel you know. :)

You do not know me. I was having spiritual experiences as a child. They were distinct from physical experiences. I was not raised in the Church. Spirit to spirit communication does not exist inside of religion.

Physical expereinces are complex and with so many variables, it is impossible for you to have experienced them all. Internal physical experiences are also just as complex and can give people the impression they are not from themselves. Again you cannot know what the body is capable of. I notice this is always ignored from mots of those who want to believe they have a divine source.

That is your observation and opinion. It is a physical and worldly based claim. Since it comes from the world, it makes sense that it would be based in the world.

It's easy to see that it is more reliable. Even many people of religion can see this. It does not lessen the value of the spiruital, only the reliability of what you can really think you know.

I know the difference between a physical experience and a spiritual experience.

So do I, but I think the spiritual expereince is just as physical, but in different ways.

I am sure there is much more I can learn spiritually as I do not know the limitations placed upon me by my physical body.

The whole point is that you and I do not know what the limitations of our bodies. I suspect they can produce some very amazing things that people will think they can't so will attribute it to some divine being. I think they are wrong, particulatrily if you look at it's track record.

Even though I have always had spiritual experiences, I used to be limited by what I believed was possible. However, by a continuing sincere desire to seek God, my spirit continues to awaken. I am not a part of any special group. An individual can experience this on-going awakening regardless of what church they belong to. What is awesome is that once this takes place, we recognize one another when we meet independent of the religious institution we choose to be a part of.

Of course anyone can experience this. This is why it is most likely internally generated, and everyone tends to interpret them according to what they want or have been taught to.

The spiritual experience is meant to teach us about the Kingdom of God, not about the world around us.

That is your interpretation of the expereince.

The Creation can, indeed, tell us something about our Creator; but the purpose of the Creation is to give us the opportunity to exercise faith in the unseen, and not the other way around.

Maybe if God is an idiot who wants us to believe in anything. Believing things without evidence is just a recipe to be deceived, and with all the religions and frauds out there, a lot of people are buying into this stupidity. Why do you think frauds are committed more in religious groups. It's becuase they find a fertile group of people ready and willing to put faith into it, because that is what their religion asks them to do with their claims.

[_jo1952]

Can you give some specific, concrete examples of current scientific theories that are accepted as truth even though they remain unproven?

Just a few: That man shares origen with chimps. That any species is able to evolve into a brand new species. That there was no world wide flood. That American science has disproven Arp's theories (which European and other countries have embraced).

Can you give us some specific, concrete examples of why you place so little credibility in the scientific peer review process?

See the above. Also work done by scientists who have observed that the human genome is deteriorating. Global warming. Those who are in agreement with the currently funded theories are honored and receive positive peer reviews. Those who are in disagreement are simply brushed aside; or worse, are discredited, have careers ruined, etc. It's really disheartening to see how this has all evolved. The web of deceit spreads its fingers into many aspects of the human experience; including, but not limited to, what current generations of students are taught in disciplines such as science and history.

Interesting. What exactly are the specific physical indications of a spiritual experience?

Please review comments already posted on this thread.

Are you a Mormon?

Yes. More importantly than the label may imply to some, I believe in the Risen Christ, in Heavenly Father who is THE Supreme and Most High Almighty God, and in the Holy Ghost who reveals all Truth to those who dwell in the flesh, who sincerely desire and seek and ask God for that Truth.

by the way, since all of the above have been argued back and forth ad nauseum, I will not engage in any dispute with you because ultimately, we will each choose to come to our own interpretation of what has been observed.

Love,

jo

[_Natsunekko]

Just a few: That man shares origen with chimps. That any species is able to evolve into a brand new species. That there was no world wide flood. That American science has disproven Arp's theories (which European and other countries have embraced).

Thanks. What are “Arp’s theories”?

See the above. Also work done by scientists who have observed that the human genome is deteriorating. Global warming. Those who are in agreement with the currently funded theories are honored and receive positive peer reviews. Those who are in disagreement are simply brushed aside; or worse, are discredited, have careers ruined, etc. It's really disheartening to see how this has all evolved. The web of deceit spreads its fingers into many aspects of the human experience; including, but not limited to, what current generations of students are taught in disciplines such as science and history.

Thanks. Do you have any names, dates, and specific instances that plainly show how and where the web of deceit spreads its fingers into many aspects of human experience?

Please review comments already posted on this thread.

I’d be happy to, but this thread goes on for more than fourteen pages. Could you maybe provide a link to a page where you succinctly list the reliable indicators of spiritual/physical interaction? Thanks!

Yes. More importantly than the label may imply to some, I believe in the Risen Christ, in Heavenly Father who is THE Supreme and Most High Almighty God, and in the Holy Ghost who reveals all Truth to those who dwell in the flesh, who sincerely desire and seek and ask God for that Truth.

Thanks.

by the way, since all of the above have been argued back and forth ad nauseum, I will not engage in any dispute with you because ultimately, we will each choose to come to our own interpretation of what has been observed.

I’m not here to argue with you.

[_Franktalk]

What are “Arp’s theories”?

I will answer this. He is a man who has studied the cosmos. He has observed many things which disagree with currently held views. NASA in responding to one of his observations basically said that you can't always believe what you see.

Here is a link to find out more.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

One day the big bang theory will fall apart. The weight of evidence will over power the agenda driven elites. Or they will all die off and the new people will believe in new theories. It has happened before and it will happen again.

[_Tarski]

He is a man who has studied the cosmos. He has observed many things which disagree with currently held views.

and so because of this virtue alone you embrace him.

Was there ever a fringe theory that you had no use for?

[_Franktalk]

Was there ever a fringe theory that you had no use for?

Yes, man made global warming. The earth heats up and cools down all of the time. To say that man is the primary cause is silly.

Yes, the ice age prediction in the seventies.

Yes, the population bomb that was supposed to be here already.

Yes, wind turbines make sense.

Yes, butter is bad for you.

Yes, eggs are bad for you.

Yes, a frontal lobotomy should be used to fix people.

Yes, eugenics.

[_Themis]

He is a man who has studied the cosmos. He has observed many things which disagree with currently held views.

and so because of this virtue alone you embrace him.

Was there ever a fringe theory that you had no use for?

I found it interesting that frank and jo like science fine when it agrees or at least doesn't disagree with religious or political beliefs. When it does though, they have some kind of agenda to hide the truth, and they seek some kind of fringe theories they think will support these beliefs. What's interesting is the lack of ability to see who has more of an agenda here. :)