Now that you supposedly know how to discuss respond to post 62 and read the few from me, bp, and kurto before you do so you can respond.

I'd really appreciate if you didn't go off on one

A. if you're going to ignore my previous question, fine, but at least throw me a post where you dismiss me or something

B. like everyone is saying, what? Science has not confirmed that animals of any type (meaning also humans) have souls. There are qualities that animals have that my religious friends tend to believe stem from souls (empathy, etc.) but finding those qualities in no way demonstrates that souls exist in animals.

Seems like she's trying to throw something crazy enough out there to get us talking in hopes we'll forget the topic at hand.

Splenda, I know you're a big fan of claiming to know everything, but you really can just say, "I don't know." You can say, "I don't have proof that my faith is the true one, but I have had powerful personal experiences (or whatever) that make me feel confident in my choice. It is possible that I am wrong, but I feel very strongly that I'm not. Due to my powerful personal experiences I would find it impossible to choose to have faith in anything else, so this is what I have and will continue to have faith in."

There would be nothing to argue with there, really. But I don't think you're capable of admitting to anything but absolute knowledge. Oh well.

You could even just concede, "That's a valid question, and one I don't really have a response for that would be convincing to anyone but me."

Imo because of personal divine revelation.

Jesus says "My sheep hear my voice."

Most people are convicted in their hearts from scripture. Particularly from the Gospels.

Thank you. This is an answer, an allows us to progress in the conversation.

However, once again, please explain how every Mormon can receive a personal divine revelation, testifying to the truth of the Book of Mormon by the 'burning in the bosom', yet be at odds with other Christian teaching.

'I don't know' is an acceptable answer. Personally, I find it to be important evidence which invalidates the authenticity of personal religious experience. You may feel different, and I'd like to hear your side.

There is a lot of good in this point but I think it would not be doable for most believers (and certainly by Splenda).

Other then Bunny, most believers won't say this because it exposes that their beliefs are somewhat arbitrary and should be tenuous.

This is an honest response. I would guess that this is again problematic to most to admit because its not very convincing or again rational. Anyone who believes in other gods, ghosts, space men beaming messages into their heads from hidden bases on mars, etc..., all rely on similar unproveable evidence is entirely personal. I would venture to say that when a lot of people describe these personal experiences they realize that they are largely emotional reactions that take place entirely in their minds (the same as the overwhelming feeling that the girl across the street from your house is your soulmate for life which you feel with all your heart even though she doesn't know you exist), emotional reactions that, again, don't really point to their beliefs holding any more truth because followers of other gods have the exact same personal experiences.

I do say most people would see the problem with admitting this because we've seen that splenda in particular thinks that her emotions are more meaningful to discovering the truth then reason. If she FEELS that 2+2=5... then darn it, that's what's most important.

One couldn't argue that this is how they feel. One could argue until the cows come home if this is reasonable evidence to sustain those beliefs. I think most people realize that under scrutiny, this is a pretty flimsy basis for a belief system. I think this is why so few theists answer the question this directly (and I believe 'this honestly').

That's a very Bunny response. I think its very honest. But I think most realize that doesn't withstand any scrutiny (it more or less avoids scrutiny). I also think many believers don't want to say anything that leads to the logical conclusion (which is what I believe many of us here have surmised): The your faith is merely a product of your cultural upbringing. And that while there may be a correct religion out there, there is no good reason to believe you have the right one. Because all the reasons end up looking no different then the ones presented by followers of other faiths; faith and feelings but nothing that is meaningful if you don't WANT to believe it.

Do you recognize that if we asked a believer of another faith why their faith is the correct faith, they would likely answer:

"because of personal divine revelation.

___________ says "____(something about hear my words)____"

Most people are convicted in their hearts from scripture. Particularly from [insert scripture from that religion]"

Do you realize that your answer includes nothing that differentiates it from other religions except for the name of the deity (Jesus) and the name of some of the holy texts (the Gospels).


NO DIFFERENCE. Nothing that someone who doesn't already believe can see that makes Christianity any more correct then any other. The cliff notes of your answer is "my faith is right because people who believe it believe they have a relationship with their God and because their Holy Books convince them" It really doesn't matter what religion you follow. Your answer could be exactly the same.

So what your saying is:

The more one invests in god (Your 4 points), The more you get from god (Hear him etc).

I think this is a a subconscious response as you want to beleive your effort is rewarded / success.

A little like somebody who joins a poker coaching site and then goes on a heater that week would attribute that success to the coaching he invested in.

Different things but one of them was a bizarre coincidence. I'll leave it at that.

No they don't contradict each other.

I just worded them badly.

Huh? I don't recall ever thinking anyone but Satan was Satan.

I don't know what generates their experience. Does every Mormon receive that sensation?

But I don't know enough about Mormons to make definitive statements about them for others but for myself their history of polygamy is a red flag. Polygamy stumbled King Solomon. It is not a way of life approved by God imo.

Mainly though I believe Paul when he says there is only one Gospel. The Koran was delivered by angels but Paul said there is only one Gospel and it was not of human origin but that he got it from Jesus and that no angels could deliver another. I also believe Paul is accurate in his description of the Christian experience. I think many believers/disciples have experienced things similar to what Paul experienced in the Book of Acts.

What has changed in the world is most likely Christian theology with the advent of Arminianism. It has atttibuted a greater role to free will than I think was the historic norm. Arminianism seems to have inverted the historical position on this. Of course free will plays a role but I don't believe its as dominant as people in the more Wesleyan side of the Christian house attribute. Though the exact proportion of divine/human will in the equation is impossible to determine which is revealed if you study different major Christian groups doctrinal statements of belief. If you check people like George Fox and Martin Luther they were not considering free will as a prime mover. With the social climate in Europe changing towards the Enlightenment Era something occurred and suddenly people are making free will a bigger player than it had been historically. You can check Luther and Erasmus debating this question. Luther tears Erasmus up on this question. I believe I have a link summarizing their debate posted in The Faith in Action thread.

Every Mormon I've talked to has. And they all push you to pray to God and ask if the Book of Mormon is true. This is when the 'burning in the bosom' occurs. Every Mormon I've ever met has been very confident about this. One of my best friends is a Mormon.

This is fair.

This is also fair. Thank you.

How do you feel your personal experience plays into your faith? Is it possible to even consider it may not be authentic, based on similar experiences felt by those who believe in other faiths?

My faith expanded greatly once I tried to represent it. Once I became active it grew. I was passive before because I didn't think I knew enough to take on non-believers and I wasn't sure if God really wanted me too. I felt unsure of my qualification to discuss religion. But once I started discussing it I delved into it much more accutely and I really pondered things much more deeply. I had an experience a number of years ago where I touched the cross hanging in my car on a misty day then got an auto accident where the car did a 180 degree spin. I felt God saved me from death. Recently I helped a relative get baptized and they had an auto accident about 2 weeks ago and the car did a 180 degree spin. Both of us walked away without injuries. That's why I felt it was a devil's attack. Most people would get scared after that but I didn't. I think I can stand on God's Word. The Psalms are loaded with verses that believers are protected and the lion of God is a stronger lion than Satan even if he does go around roaring.

I have had many experiences since posting in this forum. I had the lighthouse experience, the rainbow experience and several others.

Do you think it's possible for cars to do 180 degree spins based on the laws of phsyics alone, or does this only happen through satanic intervention?