Powerful evidence for Design?

[Gaber]

It’s certainly lopsided when one person proclaims on the basis of a non-communicable private experience that all the others are rationalising while he alone on this forum has been spiritually enlightened…

I do not claim to be spiritually enlightened, any more or less than anyone less on here. How could I be? You are talking about an impossibility, and not about what I mean. Can you communicate your private experience? No, you communicate words about your experience as you interpret what you think that your private experience might be. No one’s words communicate their actual private experience. No one’s. What they do is take advantage of commonalities in order to render an approximation that is more or less functional. Even your private experience of 2+2=4is communicable except as an abstracted commonality. So what are you talking about, Tonyrey?

But I have proposed a method by which you and I can have a commonality regarding awareness so that we can talk about a phase of it that is one you have not experienced in its purity, nor ReggieM, or you couldn’t speak as you do. And that is not about “spiritual enlightenment.” It is about knowing an aspect of your own consciousness structure. So again, can you deny that you are aware, an awareness which includes a sense of “I”?

 

[tonyrey]

I do not claim to be spiritually enlightened, any more or less than anyone less on here. How could I be? You are talking about an impossibility, and not about what I mean. Can you communicate your private experience? No, you communicate words about your experience as you interpret what you think that your private experience might be. No one’s words communicate their actual private experience. No one’s. What they do is take advantage of commonalities in order to render an approximation that is more or less functional. Even your private experience of 2+2=4is communicable except as an abstracted commonality. So what are you talking about, Tonyrey?

But I have proposed a method by which you and I can have a commonality regarding awareness so that we can talk about a phase of it that is one you have not experienced in its purity, nor ReggieM, or you couldn’t speak as you do. And that is not about “spiritual enlightenment.” It is about knowing an aspect of your own consciousness structure. So again, can you deny that you are aware, an awareness which includes a sense of “I”?

In that case you have discovered a method by which we can have “a commonality regarding awareness” a phase of which** you alone **on this forum have experienced in its purity"…

 

[tonyrey]

Congratulations to all on having passed 1000 posts on this thread, an achievement not due to Chance but Design!

 

[Gaber]

In that case you have discovered a method by which we can have “a commonality regarding awareness” a phase of which** you alone **on this forum have experienced in its purity"…

No, I have not discovered it in the sense of invention which you wish, I would guess, to ascribe to it. As I have often stated in the past on here and on other threads, the method is as old as mankind. It is comprised of a way to silence the mind from its ceaseless chatter and allow the direct perception of what is necessarily the substrate of thought. That isn’t my idea, Tonyrey, it’s just how we are built. So, once again, are you aware? Does that awareness include as sense of “I”? Yes or no?

 

[reggieM]

At long last we have a new form of knowledge discovered by the one and only reggieM of CAF!
Long live our source of inspiration… :newidea:

Thanks, Tony. I just noticed that those slogans make more sense when you read them backwards.

 

[reggieM]

Meanwhile, all of us wake up every day, deal with it as best we can, and go to bed. Real life is so much more.

Peace,
Ed

Thanks, Ed – I agree.

 

[reggieM]

… clearly not what I’m talking about.

It sure seems like that’s what you’ve been saying. But I’m glad if you have a different point to make.

 

[reggieM]

But I have proposed a method by which you and I can have a commonality regarding awareness so that we can talk about a phase of it that is one you have not experienced in its purity, nor ReggieM, or you couldn’t speak as you do.

No, I have not discovered it in the sense of invention which you wish, I would guess, to ascribe to it. As I have often stated in the past on here and on other threads, the method is as old as mankind. It is comprised of a way to silence the mind from its ceaseless chatter and allow the direct perception of what is necessarily the substrate of thought.

Are you familiar with Mormonism and the teaching on “the burning in the bosom”?

What they receive is sometimes called a burning in the bosom as a confirmation of truth. Mormons frequently appeal to James 1:5 for this, especially given that their founder, Joseph Smith, claimed that this was the verse and method he used for finding the truth. This is often accompanied by the insistence that one suspend judgment of his or her religion (even in the face of its historical and theological problems) until he or she has read the Book of Mormon and received, by prayer, a special revelation from the Holy Spirit of its truthfulness.
mormonwiki.org/Burning_in_the_bosom

This is the same thing you’re saying. If we practice your “method” (which is not yours but is ancient as mankind itself), then we’ll see the truth. Other than that, you can’t and won’t explain anything further. That’s how Mormonism approaches it. You have to pray and then you’ll get the burning in the bosom – this will allow you to understand truths that cannot be explained any other way.

You believe that we cannot even participate in the discussion until we have this “perception” that can only be gained by a methodology that you’re offering.
That is a pagan concept, not Christian. Jesus Christ did not come to bring a methodology or a new mental technique for understanding the Truth. In fact, He condemned such things as “works of the Law”. The Jewish Rabbi’s taught various methods and techniques that people had to follow in order to be closer to God – but Jesus rebuked them for that idea. “If you love me, keep my commandments” – it starts with love of the Good. Then it moves through a moral betterment and purification – that is initiated and directed by God, not through our mental gymnastics.

More from the Burning in the Bosom idea:

If one prays and does not receive the appropriate “testimony”, one is encouraged to pray more sincerely. The absence of an emotional confirmation is seen not as a testimony against Mormonism, but rather against the sincerity of the one praying.

It’s like your insistence that we haven’t practiced the method enough.

 

[Gaber]

Are you familiar with Mormonism and the teaching on “the burning in the bosom”?

What they receive is sometimes called a burning in the bosom as a confirmation of truth. Mormons frequently appeal to James 1:5 for this, especially given that their founder, Joseph Smith, claimed that this was the verse and method he used for finding the truth. This is often accompanied by the insistence that one suspend judgment of his or her religion (even in the face of its historical and theological problems) until he or she has read the Book of Mormon and received, by prayer, a special revelation from the Holy Spirit of its truthfulness.
mormonwiki.org/Burning_in_the_bosom

This is the same thing you’re saying. If we practice your “method” (which is not yours but is ancient as mankind itself), then we’ll see the truth. Other than that, you can’t and won’t explain anything further. That’s how Mormonism approaches it. You have to pray and then you’ll get the burning in the bosom – this will allow you to understand truths that cannot be explained any other way.

You believe that we cannot even participate in the discussion until we have this “perception” that can only be gained by a methodology that you’re offering.
That is a pagan concept, not Christian. Jesus Christ did not come to bring a methodology or a new mental technique for understanding the Truth. In fact, He condemned such things as “works of the Law”. The Jewish Rabbi’s taught various methods and techniques that people had to follow in order to be closer to God – but Jesus rebuked them for that idea. “If you love me, keep my commandments” – it starts with love of the Good. Then it moves through a moral betterment and purification – that is initiated and directed by God, not through our mental gymnastics.

More from the Burning in the Bosom idea:

If one prays and does not receive the appropriate “testimony”, one is encouraged to pray more sincerely. The absence of an emotional confirmation is seen not as a testimony against Mormonism, but rather against the sincerity of the one praying.

It’s like your insistence that we haven’t practiced the method enough.

Yeah right. One of my sisters and her family converted to Mormonism I have a good idea of what you are talking about. Nope. Not it. But you are doing well. the process of negation has to start somewhere.

PS Enjoyed your list of bs statements. Very funny! And beside the point.

 

[reggieM]

Here’s something that St. Thomas Aquinas offers in the Summa Theologica:

The faculty of seeing God, however, does not belong to the created intellect naturally, but is given to it by the light of glory, which establishes the intellect in a kind of “deiformity,” as appears from what is said above, in the preceding article.

Hence the intellect which has more of the light of glory will see God the more perfectly; and he will have a fuller participation of the light of glory who has more charity; because where there is the greater charity, there is the more desire; and desire in a certain degree makes the one desiring apt and prepared to receive the object desired. Hence he who possesses the more charity, will see God the more perfectly, and will be the more beatified.

So, it’s not a methodology or mental technique – but the practice and possession of charity that enables a person to see God more perfectly and therefore know Truth more fully.

 

[reggieM]

Yeah right. One of my sisters and her family converted to Mormonism I have a good idea of what you are talking about. Nope. Not it. But you are doing well. the process of negation has to start somewhere.

Well, I hope this is not a guessing game.

PS Enjoyed your list of bs statements. Very funny!

Thanks. I’m glad you read it with a sense of humor.

 

[Ben_Quincy]

1000 post limit reached. Thanks for participating.