I struggled in church because often people would talk about feeling the spirit and I struggled to feel much of anything but later realised I had dissociation so I didn't exactly have a chance to feel the spirit. But strangely, nostalgia carries a little essence of spiritual feelings for me. So looking back on my time in church, although I know I didn't feel the spirit, I do get a sense that my life was more spiritual then than it is now and I expect that I will look back in another decade and feel this time is more spiritual.
This is what I would refer to as spiritual autism. In these cases, which I think are more common than one might think, I think God has other ways to nurture and speak to us. It sounds like you’ve seen/experienced this in your own life. It’s up to us to find that modality.
Some don’t bother to do so.
Just as there is an autism spectrum there is a spirituality spectrum.
I don’t discount those things that might be troublesome to Faith.
How can you say that with a straight face? There’s other threads aplenty where you are discounting out of hand things that might be troubling to your faith. You don’t even read the links as Marcus has shown. Instead you “guess” that the source, or the reference, or the…whatever it is, can be rejected instantly. You’re either deluded about yourself, or you are dishonest. You most definitely have a closed mind, and you do discount anything and everything that might be troubling to your faith. Your whole participation on this board is littered with examples of that behaviour.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Kripal is advocating that you patronise people who claim subjective spiritual experiences.
Interesting that you choose to use the word “patronize”.
If you're suggesting that Kripal believes that scholars should condescend to or treat with contempt those who claim to have had subjective spiritual experiences, then that would be an inaccurate characterization of his views. Kripal has argued for a more open-minded and respectful approach to these experiences, not a dismissive one.
Kripal is advocating that you should allow people to believe whatever it is they want to believe, even if it is unbelievable or demonstrably untrue.
So why are you trying to tell me that what I believe Kripal is saying is untrue? Have you not been paying attention? Kripal wants you to be more open minded and respectful towards me, yet you’re being dismissive of my belief about what Kripal is doing. You’re telling me my belief is wrong. Perhaps you should start practicing what you preach…
Last edited by I Have Questions on Sat Nov 02, 2024 8:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I struggled in church because often people would talk about feeling the spirit and I struggled to feel much of anything but later realised I had dissociation so I didn't exactly have a chance to feel the spirit. But strangely, nostalgia carries a little essence of spiritual feelings for me. So looking back on my time in church, although I know I didn't feel the spirit, I do get a sense that my life was more spiritual then than it is now and I expect that I will look back in another decade and feel this time is more spiritual.
This is what I would refer to as spiritual autism. In these cases, which I think are more common than one might think, I think God has other ways to nurture and speak to us. It sounds like you’ve seen/experienced this in your own life. It’s up to us to find that modality.
Some don’t bother to do so.
Just as there is an autism spectrum there is a spirituality spectrum.
In my opinion anyway.
Regards,
MG
Spiritual autism…really?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I don’t discount those things that might be troublesome to Faith.
How can you say that with a straight face? There’s other threads aplenty where you are discounting out of hand things that might be troubling to your faith. You don’t even read the links as Marcus has shown. Instead you “guess” that the source, or the reference, or the…whatever it is, can be rejected instantly. You’re either deluded about yourself, or you are dishonest. You most definitely have a closed mind, and you do discount anything and everything that might be troubling to your faith. Your whole participation on this board is littered with examples of that behaviour.
I don’t ignore those things that might be troublesome to faith.
Interesting that you choose to use the word “patronize”.
If you're suggesting that Kripal believes that scholars should condescend to or treat with contempt those who claim to have had subjective spiritual experiences, then that would be an inaccurate characterization of his views. Kripal has argued for a more open-minded and respectful approach to these experiences, not a dismissive one.
Kripal is advocating that you should allow people to believe whatever it is they want to believe, even if it is unbelievable or demonstrably untrue.
So why are you trying to tell me that what I believe Kripal is saying is untrue? Have you not been paying attention? Kripal wants you to be more open minded and respectful towards me, yet you’re being dismissive of my belief about what Kripal is doing. You’re telling me my belief is wrong. Perhaps you should start practicing what you preach…
This is what I would refer to as spiritual autism. In these cases, which I think are more common than one might think, I think God has other ways to nurture and speak to us. It sounds like you’ve seen/experienced this in your own life. It’s up to us to find that modality.
Some don’t bother to do so.
Just as there is an autism spectrum there is a spirituality spectrum.
In my opinion anyway.
Regards,
MG
Spiritual autism…really?
I’m bouncing off of what IWMP’s posts were saying. Yes, I think people respond to ‘the Spirit’ in different ways. We’re all different. Are you expecting cookie cutter responses to the Spirit or that God would interact with everyone in exactly the same way?
