Didn’t think you’d tie yourself down to a specific definition of a term, you want to reserve the right to make it be whatever suits you in the moment. Even if it’s different to what you wanted it to mean previously.
In earlier posts I’ve talked extensively as to what I think spirituality might include. Go back and read, if you’re willing.
As of yet, I don’t know how you would define that word at any length.
You are weaseling.
C’mon. What is spirituality? A definition that you think is all encompassing and that I am more than likely to agree with…because it’s so OBVIOUS.
I spent pages and time defining spirituality and how it might apply ‘across the spectrum’.
Now, do me a favor. Be vulnerable. Express your own damn opinion.
Excuse the French.
Regards,
MG
What I think spirituality is or isn’t is irrelevant. I’m not the one seeking to discus it.
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.
In earlier posts I’ve talked extensively as to what I think spirituality might include. Go back and read, if you’re willing.
As of yet, I don’t know how you would define that word at any length.
You are weaseling.
C’mon. What is spirituality? A definition that you think is all encompassing and that I am more than likely to agree with…because it’s so OBVIOUS.
I spent pages and time defining spirituality and how it might apply ‘across the spectrum’.
Now, do me a favor. Be vulnerable. Express your own damn opinion.
Excuse the French.
Regards,
MG
What I think spirituality is or isn’t is irrelevant. I’m not the one seeking to discus it.
Alrighty then. I’ve discussed it in depth on this very thread. You are unwilling to open up a wee bit and be just a little vulnerable and actually share your opinion.
And yet you and Marcus think we ought to agree on common definitions.
How does that work? You are not even willing to share. All you’re doing is obfuscating.
It seems to me where I’ve gone to great length to share my thoughts you ought to be willing to do the same.
What I think spirituality is or isn’t is irrelevant. I’m not the one seeking to discus it.
Alrighty then. I’ve discussed it in depth on this very thread. You are unwilling to open up a wee bit and be just a little vulnerable and actually share your opinion.
And yet you and Marcus think we ought to agree on common definitions.
How does that work? You are not even willing to share. All you’re doing is obfuscating.
It seems to me where I’ve gone to great length to share my thoughts you ought to be willing to do the same.
Oh well.
Regards,
MG
I've explained why you should agree definitions of terms when discussing those terms. That was my contribution. It’s up to you whether or not tou choose to do that with the people you’re discussing spirituality with.
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.
Alrighty then. I’ve discussed it in depth on this very thread. You are unwilling to open up a wee bit and be just a little vulnerable and actually share your opinion.
And yet you and Marcus think we ought to agree on common definitions.
How does that work? You are not even willing to share. All you’re doing is obfuscating.
It seems to me where I’ve gone to great length to share my thoughts you ought to be willing to do the same.
Oh well.
Regards,
MG
I've explained why you should agree definitions of terms when discussing those terms. That was my contribution. It’s up to you whether or not tou choose to do that with the people you’re discussing spirituality with.
It looks like we’re done.
I would encourage others to go back and see whether or not I have adequately made a case for what I originally called “spiritual autism’. Back where I brought Kripal into the conversation.
Things have gone almost nowhere in the last number of pages.
Back where I brought Kripal into the conversation.
Kripal says that you should believe that people believe they’ve had supernatural experiences if they say they have, even if you don’t believe they have.
I still haven’t heard a suggestion as to how a person can reasonably and reliably differentiate between a supernatural experience (one generated by an external, supernatural entity), and one that’s been self-generated.
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've explained why you should agree definitions of terms when discussing those terms. That was my contribution. It’s up to you whether or not tou choose to do that with the people you’re discussing spirituality with.
It looks like we’re done.
I would encourage others to go back and see whether or not I have adequately made a case for what I originally called “spiritual autism’...
Whoa. After everything that has been discussed about how inappropriate your "spiritual autism" comment was, you want others to go back and see if you 'made a case' for it? What on earth are you thinking? You cannot possibly be unsure about how inappropriate your comments were. You would have to be really, really unintelligent, or, you are trolling.
Back where I brought Kripal into the conversation.
Kripal says that you should believe that people believe they’ve had supernatural experiences if they say they have, even if you don’t believe they have.
I still haven’t heard a suggestion as to how a person can reasonably and reliably differentiate between a supernatural experience (one generated by an external, supernatural entity), and one that’s been self-generated.
I have a question, speaking as a believer in spiritual experience and influence from God. I would say there is no way for you to be sure whether a given experience is self generated or not. This would mean that spiritual experience should not be used as a truth test and should never override evidence, reason and life experience. However spiritual experience may help reason and understanding and be of important value to people.
I am of course differing from LDS teaching here which I view as problematic.
I have a question, speaking as a believer in spiritual experience and influence from God. I would say there is no way for you to be sure whether a given experience is self generated or not.
That is the conclusion I’ve reached.
This would mean that spiritual experience should not be used as a truth test and should never override evidence, reason and life experience.
I wholeheartedly agree.
However spiritual experience may help reason and understanding and be of important value to people.
My perception is that a spiritual experience may provide comfort, peace, a sense of wellbeing, and be valued by people. I’m not convinced they can help reason and understanding.
I am of course differing from LDS teaching here which I view as problematic.
I agree, it is very problematic.
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 would encourage others to go back and see whether or not I have adequately made a case for what I originally called “spiritual autism’...
Whoa. After everything that has been discussed about how inappropriate your "spiritual autism" comment was, you want others to go back and see if you 'made a case' for it? What on earth are you thinking? You cannot possibly be unsure about how inappropriate your comments were. You would have to be really, really unintelligent, or, you are trolling.
What are the odds?
Hey Marcus, You don’t think I was referring to you in this instance do you?
By others, I meant others. Not you in particular. I have no expectations that you would take anything I said seriously except to find fault.
