Truth and Burning Bosoms

[_subgenius]

Hello subgenius,

As a theist, and more significantly as a believer in only one God (or what I would call force)

force? wha? why the deliberate use of the word "force"? it would seem that the use of this words reveals that your view of the world is one that exists only within the physical ,and that things spiritual must be a physical illusion. I completely disagree, can you justify your position as to using the word "force"....and no star wars analogies allowed.

then from my world view both inspiration and instinct would be part of the same force. When I mentioned it causes people to have inflated egos I didn't intend it as a bad thing. The inflated egos are needed for the individual to achieve his goals.

How so?
His goals? are these not the product of an ego? how can an ego be the solution to the problem which the ego created?
How do you justify the conclusion that the "instinct" creates an ego in order to accomplish goals (goals of either the instinct or goals of the ego)?
If you are proposing that having an ego is instinctual then i would like to read that conclusion.

As far as who designed instinct I believe it is part of the one force. I don't know if it was actually designed or not. My guess is that whatever species it inhabits it sort of designs itself for the benefit of that species and for the individual within that species.

With regards to evidence it's mostly derived from watching various nature movies with regards to animals know to do certain things without being taught. If you saw the movie "march of the penquins" it was pointed out that penguins just automatically know to begin mating at 5 years old.

it is "assumed" that they already "know"....nevertheless, sexual maturity and the "instinct" to procreate are presumably intertwined in your view, correct?

Is there something you actually disagree with that I wrote so that I can reply to that item instead of the entire thread?

Allow me to be more specific about your post prior:

My present understanding of instinct is that it is concerned with the survival of the individual and the species.

As part of that agenda it provides whatever an individual (either human or animal) needs to live within his respective community.

It also provides what is necesary for the individual to evolve. That's why people form inflated egos of there purpose in life with regards to possible future greatness.

Instinct was never designed to be used for information about past civilizations or to unlock the mysteries of the universe. Those who use it for that purpose are setting themselves up for disappointment.

[_LittleNipper]

I take God at His Word. Burning in the Bosom and fEeLiNgS can also be gas related. I like the idea of being saved, even when I don't always feel like I am.

[_Themis]

I take God at His Word. Burning in the Bosom and fEeLiNgS can also be gas related. I like the idea of being saved, even when I don't always feel like I am.

How do you know it's God's word?

[_LittleNipper]

I take God at His Word. Burning in the Bosom and fEeLiNgS can also be gas related. I like the idea of being saved, even when I don't always feel like I am.

How do you know it's God's word?

What makes you think it isn't?

[_Drifting]

How do you know it's God's word?

What makes you think it isn't?

I'm going with - Because God didn't write it.

[_LittleNipper]

How do you know it's God's word?

What makes you think it isn't?

I'm going with - Because God didn't write it.

Look, I'm a CHRISTIAN. I do not believe the Book of Mormon was writen by God. However, I certainly believe God had a hand in writing the Bible.

[_Drifting]

Look, I'm a CHRISTIAN. I do not believe the Book of Mormon was writen by God. However, I certainly believe God had a hand in writing the Bible.

Mormons are Christians...apparently...

Anyhow, just because you believe something, even if you believe it lots and lots, doesn't just make it so.

Do you think the Bible is to be taken 100% literally, 100% metaphorically, or do you pick and choose?

[_Themis]

What makes you think it isn't?

I am asking how you know it is God's word?

[_Philo Sofee]

The whole "feelings" thing is garbage. Go have a real experience with God or get out. Indigestion is a terrible way to determine the truth of anything but food poisoning.

And your criteria for a "real experience" with God would be ... what?

There was a lady I met on my Mormon mission who claimed that the voices of angels and demons spoke to her from her television. In your estimation, did she have a "real experience" with God? How would a person tell the difference between a real and imaginary experience?

Please, enlighten us.

VERY easy, read John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins. The theory that special feelings occur is accurate. The leap that it is God is unfounded. The brain can and does give us far more than we have supposed. Cognative science has demonstrated over the last 20 years that the brain is far more powerful than we have given it credit. It is religion which says those feelings are from God. The problem with that is ALL the religions claim the same thing, but apparently God isn't overly concerned with teaching an objective truth the same to all people, but instead is more than satisfied to leave us confused, muddled and dazed as we get worked up over someone else's "wrong" theology to the point that blood is spilt, and, as ever, in the name of God no less. Feelings do not teach us truth, the brain does.

[_Philo Sofee]

Look, I'm a CHRISTIAN. I do not believe the Book of Mormon was writen by God. However, I certainly believe God had a hand in writing the Bible.

Mormons are Christians...apparently...

Anyhow, just because you believe something, even if you believe it lots and lots, doesn't just make it so.

Do you think the Bible is to be taken 100% literally, 100% metaphorically, or do you pick and choose?

The Bible is entirely man made. God in the Bible never acts or thinks like an Almighty God, let alone one who is omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent. But he sure acts human, all too human.