Now I get it...How to feel the Spirit.

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_wybmadiity
_Emeritus
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:53 am

Re: Now I get it...How to feel the Spirit.

Post by _wybmadiity »

Bazooka wrote:Also, what's the common sense definition of "the spirit"?



THRE IS NO COMMON SENSE DEFINITUON OF SPIRIT.
Its totally FAITH.
_Quasimodo
_Emeritus
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:11 am

Re: Now I get it...How to feel the Spirit.

Post by _Quasimodo »

wybmadiity wrote:
Bazooka wrote:Also, what's the common sense definition of "the spirit"?



THRE IS NO COMMON SENSE DEFINITUON OF SPIRIT.
Its totally FAITH.


So, what is the definition of faith?

I like Mark Twain's definition.

Mark Twain wrote:Faith is believing something you know ain't true.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
_Bazooka
_Emeritus
Posts: 10719
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:36 am

Re: Now I get it...How to feel the Spirit.

Post by _Bazooka »

wybmadiity wrote:
Bazooka wrote:Also, what's the common sense definition of "the spirit"?



THRE IS NO COMMON SENSE DEFINITUON OF SPIRIT.


Exactly.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
_Amore
_Emeritus
Posts: 1094
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 4:27 pm

Re: Now I get it...How to feel the Spirit.

Post by _Amore »

subgenius wrote:"If you ask this guy, what -- "all that glitters is not gold," what does that mean?" The patient says, "Well, if it's metallic and shiny, it doesn't mean it's gold. You have to measure its specific gravity, OK?" So, they completely miss the metaphorical meaning. So, this area is about eight times the size in higher -- especially in humans -- as in lower primates. Something very interesting is going on here in the angular gyrus, because it's the crossroads between hearing, vision and touch, and it became enormous in humans. And something very interesting is going on. And I think it's a basis of many uniquely human abilities like abstraction, metaphor and creativity."

Well put.
Intrapersonal intelligence isn't the same as logical intelligence, but both are helpful.

We're hardwired to feel emotion FIRST, then analyze later.
It can mean life or death - so emotions shouldn't be knocked as hard as some pound.
_GrandMoffTarkin
_Emeritus
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 9:21 am

Re: Now I get it...How to feel the Spirit.

Post by _GrandMoffTarkin »

subgenius wrote:This is a great example, finally, of what your point is....that validation or invalidation comes from some sort of abstract "repetition". If i make a statement that "feels" right but can be "thought" wrong; or feels "wrong" but can be thought "right"; or etc. etc. ....then what?
will it only be true, in your above described paradigm, if it both "feels" right and "thinks" right?

this is why i mentioned thinking fast and thinking slow...there is a difference....apparently.


Why are you so fixated on repetition? Yes, repetition is ONE way of testing things...but I think we're getting way off track here. Let's bring the discussion back to my original point. Feelings are not a reliable source of truth about a world external to us.

As an example, you can "feel" the world is flat all you want, but you can easily study and find out that it is round. Now, you can try to muddy that up with catch phrases like "seeing through our own lens" if you want but it not helpful to the discussion, unless we're going to entertain the possibility that there is no absolute truth and we all live in a reality constructed within ourselves, which is an entirely different discussion and way too much of a tangent.

You can pray about a truth external to yourself if you want (e.g. is the Book of Mormon the word of God? Was Joseph Smith a true prophet) but my contention is that feelings are not reliable on such topics. This is why we have so many different sects, all with people who have received a "spiritual" confirmation that their church is God's only true one. Most of it (if not all of it) can be explained by psychology and neuroscience.

that was the scope of my comment. I'm not sure why you feel the need to obfuscate.

by the way, Bazooka is still waiting for an answer. Your silence on the matter indicates that you don't have one.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence - Hitch
_Bazooka
_Emeritus
Posts: 10719
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:36 am

Re: Now I get it...How to feel the Spirit.

Post by _Bazooka »

GrandMoffTarkin wrote:by the way, Bazooka is still waiting for an answer. Your silence on the matter indicates that you don't have one.


I'm not too disappointed by his lack of moral integrity, it seems to be about where I had it pegged for him. Zero.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Now I get it...How to feel the Spirit.

Post by _subgenius »

GrandMoffTarkin wrote:
subgenius wrote:This is a great example, finally, of what your point is....that validation or invalidation comes from some sort of abstract "repetition". If i make a statement that "feels" right but can be "thought" wrong; or feels "wrong" but can be thought "right"; or etc. etc. ....then what?
will it only be true, in your above described paradigm, if it both "feels" right and "thinks" right?

this is why i mentioned thinking fast and thinking slow...there is a difference....apparently.


Why are you so fixated on repetition? Yes, repetition is ONE way of testing things...but I think we're getting way off track here. Let's bring the discussion back to my original point. Feelings are not a reliable source of truth about a world external to us.

So you are expecting "reliable" to be distinct from a concept of repetition?

GrandMoffTarkin wrote:As an example, you can "feel" the world is flat all you want, but you can easily study and find out that it is round. Now, you can try to muddy that up with catch phrases like "seeing through our own lens" if you want but it not helpful to the discussion, unless we're going to entertain the possibility that there is no absolute truth and we all live in a reality constructed within ourselves, which is an entirely different discussion and way too much of a tangent.

Huh? No one "feels", or ever felt, the world is flat. You seem to struggle with the notion that feeling and thinking are distinct conditions. ... maybe that is why you are confused on this topic.

GrandMoffTarkin wrote:You can pray about a truth external to yourself if you want (e.g. is the Book of Mormon the word of God? Was Joseph Smith a true prophet) but my contention is that feelings are not reliable on such topics. This is why we have so many different sects, all with people who have received a "spiritual" confirmation that their church is God's only true one. Most of it (if not all of it) can be explained by psychology and neuroscience.

Your are offering an opinion not a contention.

GrandMoffTarkin wrote:that was the scope of my comment. I'm not sure why you feel the need to obfuscate.

If by reliable you do not mean a repeated, i.e. predictable, result then whatever do you mean? Justify your imposed value of "better". Our is this just another example of"opinion".

GrandMoffTarkin wrote:by the way, Bazooka is still waiting for an answer. Your silence on the matter indicates that you don't have one.

Again, and not surprisingly, that is your opinion. I am unaware of any question from Bazooka not receiving its appropriate response from me.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Post Reply