Spiritually Vs. Intellectually

[Bini]

Yesterday at church there was a talk given on Agency, although, it seemed to touch base on everything underneath the sun. One aspect was the idea that the seed of knowledge (knowing that God is) is in all of us, regardless of who we are, where we come from, or what our intellectual brains tell us but when we don't grow that seed - we don't grow and we don't acknowledge God. The speaker continued that one may identify himself as Atheist but that this roots from an intellectual/social standpoint and not from a spiritual standpoint. He referred to his estranged son, who has had little contact with him over the many years, except for this last Fathers Day. His son is Atheist and confided to him that he feels that there is a divine power but that intellectually he just can't accept that there is a God.

The talk was pretty good, actually. I did enjoy it and I hope I understood the message correctly. But I'm curious now if NOT believing isn't so black and white - non believer versus believer. Can you say that intellectually there is no God and yet say that spiritually you have a feeling (even if an inkling) that there is one but you won't acknowledge it because your brain/science/media/whatever cannot compute God + Reality?

Edited To Add..

I'm NOT referring to knowing that the Gospel is true. That comes with a sincere and humble heart of prayer, fasting and reading the BOM. I'm referring to acknowledging that there is a God.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Bini

[applepansy]

The knowledge that we are children of God is in everyone. Can people spiritually have an inkling there is a divine power which created everything? Yes. Can they deny that knowledge because they talk themselves out of believing? Yes.

Its sad.

Even people who have built a testimony can revert back to non-belief.

[Anddenex]

Can you say that intellectually there is no God and yet say that spiritually you have a feeling (even if an inkling) that there is one but you won't acknowledge it because your brain/science/media/whatever cannot compute God + Reality?

Bini, this is my personal feeling from debating with Athiest, and seeking to understand their hearts.

When I have spoken with an Athiest, who specifies this same argument, in their minds they are saying, "Is this God, or just a higher intelligence."

An example would be, if you are at all interested in Sci-fy, would be stargate and the ancients.

The ancients are a further evolved humanoid species. They have Godlike traits, but are not Gods themselves.

Thus, many of them get caught up in the feeling of a God, yet is it really a God or just a more evolved species, race, which according to our minds, have Godlike characteristics.

However, in also answering your question, I personally don't feel the two can be separated. If a person feels there is a God, then that person should discover who that God is, logically or intellectually cannot deny their feelings.

Another argument presented by Athiesm, is that they don't believe because of "feeling" they believe because of evidence.

In this argument, then, yes, the two can be separated by the mere proposal that our feelings do not allows lead to factual or true results.

Thus, to an Athiest, a feeling is a whim to be ignored. Evidence, is to be accepted. Thus intellectually they say, "There is no God," but inwardly they feel there could be.

It is a never ending circular debate.

[Vort]

One aspect was the idea that the seed of knowledge (knowing that God is) is in all of us, regardless of who we are, where we come from, or what our intellectual brains tell us but when we don't grow that seed - we don't grow and we don't acknowledge God.

This sounds about right to me.

Can you say that intellectually there is no God and yet say that spiritually you have a feeling (even if an inkling) that there is one but you won't acknowledge it because your brain/science/media/whatever cannot compute God + Reality?

Absolutely, I believe you can. But if you do, and you're honest, you eventually will have to face the fact that such an intellectual position is not consistent with itself.

In order to believe that God is intellectually untenable, you must believe that your mind can comprehend everything -- indeed, that it already does comprehend all of the facts of the universe necessary to make the determination that there is no God. Which is an absurd position; no one can have such knowledge. In sum, you would have to know pretty much everything to make sure there is not some knowledge somewhere that shows that God exists.

My take on it, anyway.

[Traveler]

Yesterday at church there was a talk given on Agency, although, it seemed to touch base on everything underneath the sun. One aspect was the idea that the seed of knowledge (knowing that God is) is in all of us, regardless of who we are, where we come from, or what our intellectual brains tell us but when we don't grow that seed - we don't grow and we don't acknowledge God. The speaker continued that one may identify himself as Atheist but that this roots from an intellectual/social standpoint and not from a spiritual standpoint. He referred to his estranged son, who has had little contact with him over the many years, except for this last Fathers Day. His son is Atheist and confided to him that he feels that there is a divine power but that intellectually he just can't accept that there is a God.

The talk was pretty good, actually. I did enjoy it and I hope I understood the message correctly. But I'm curious now if NOT believing isn't so black and white - non believer versus believer. Can you say that intellectually there is no God and yet say that spiritually you have a feeling (even if an inkling) that there is one but you won't acknowledge it because your brain/science/media/whatever cannot compute God + Reality?

Edited To Add..

I'm NOT referring to knowing that the Gospel is true. That comes with a sincere and humble heart of prayer, fasting and reading the BOM. I'm referring to acknowledging that there is a God.

I have always believed that intelligence is a good thing. If one understands the Holy Spirit they understand actual intelligence. The spirit of G-d is intelligence and the very light of truth. However, not everything that has come to be labeled “intelligence” is indeed that. There are copies, counterfeits and illusions of intelligence. So much so that many have come to think of pseudo-intellectualism as actual intelligence – How intelligent is that?

It pains me that for many there is a rift between science and religion. No pursuit of truth is counter to or evil before G-d. The “true” G-d is a G-d of truth; he does not lie, nor is he the father of lies, nor does he delight is perpetrating falsehoods. G-d does not hide truth but delights in making the truth known. Discouragement of truth or the effort to diminish truth and the discovery of truth comes from that devil that lies, covers and distorts the truth.

Anciently it was believed that holy and perfect meant whole and complete. This is a very interesting concept. In modern times we think of being perfect is being flawless. This flawless definition is, in my mind a distraction and actual distortion of truth. It is not enough to be innocent of sin – to be holy we must possess the whole – not have absents of error only. Repentance is not complete with the removal of sin – repentance is a change of heart to find joy in that which is holy (whole) and true.

I believe that it is impossible to acknowledge there is a “true and living” G-d without acknowledging the truth and that the two are inseparable.

The Traveler

[mtman318]

In order to believe that God is intellectually untenable, you must believe that your mind can comprehend everything -- indeed, that it already does comprehend all of the facts of the universe necessary to make the determination that there is no God. Which is an absurd position; no one can have such knowledge. In sum, you would have to know pretty much everything to make sure there is not some knowledge somewhere that shows that God exists.

And if you know everything, and are thus omniscient, then you are God. So from an intellectual or logical point of view, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God.

[sabastious]

I'm NOT referring to knowing that the Gospel is true. That comes with a sincere and humble heart of prayer, fasting and reading the BOM. I'm referring to acknowledging that there is a God.

Understanding something like the Gospel of Christ does not require humility. If it did then the second you became "convinced" of one grouping of doctrine then people who follow opposing doctrine could then just say you are not being humble in regards to THEIR doctrine. No set of religious doctrine is unchanging and therefore methodology is greater than humility in this respect. Humility is required in accepting a higher power, but I don't see it playing a vital role in discovering truth that manifests in our lives. That's what our senses and intelligence are for: discovery and the Gospel is discovered. If God didn't want us to use our intellectual faculties to ascertain the truth about Christ then the Bible would have been better preserved over time. Even the Golden Plates were said to be purposely removed as to not give an "automatic OK" to the "holder of the Plates." It's up to our brains to discover the Gospel and that means hard work and determination.

Secularists accuse all religions of lacking humility because science is painstaking and requires a lot of education to wrap one's head around it. They say that belief in God is irresponsible and to be truly humble is to admit that one doesn't know the truth about the universe and that much more discovery is required. The feeling of God resides within us all, but the truth about how He works is ultimately mysterious, imo.

Regards,

-Sabastious

[Bini]

I appreciate everyone's insights.

[Traveler]

Understanding something like the Gospel of Christ does not require humility. If it did then the second you became "convinced" of one grouping of doctrine then people who follow opposing doctrine could then just say you are not being humble in regards to THEIR doctrine. No set of religious doctrine is unchanging and therefore methodology is greater than humility in this respect. Humility is required in accepting a higher power, but I don't see it playing a vital role in discovering truth that manifests in our lives. That's what our senses and intelligence are for: discovery and the Gospel is discovered. If God didn't want us to use our intellectual faculties to ascertain the truth about Christ then the Bible would have been better preserved over time. Even the Golden Plates were said to be purposely removed as to not give an "automatic OK" to the "holder of the Plates." It's up to our brains to discover the Gospel and that means hard work and determination.

Secularists accuse all religions of lacking humility because science is painstaking and requires a lot of education to wrap one's head around it. They say that belief in God is irresponsible and to be truly humble is to admit that one doesn't know the truth about the universe and that much more discovery is required. The feeling of God resides within us all, but the truth about how He works is ultimately mysterious, imo.

Regards,

-Sabastious

As a scientist and engineer - I think you have some misconceptions about humility. For me humility is the willingness to subject (sacrifice) yourself to the painstaking opportunity of the entire spectrum of possibility and not just the quickest easiest solution. It is the willingness to go through all that G-d intends of mortal existence (Jesus Christ being the foremost example).

Two of my favorite subjects are science and religion. Are you really the type that intends to avoid the “cutting edge” of possibilities? What is more humble than taking “the Point” or being the lighting rod in the conflict between good and evil, truth and lies, light and darkness, success and failure.

One thing I really do not understand - where does the notion that truth and that a G-d of truth is some kind of ultimate un-understandable mystery?

The Traveler

[sabastious]

As a scientist and engineer - I think you have some misconceptions about humility. For me humility is the willingness to subject (sacrifice) yourself to the painstaking opportunity of the entire spectrum of possibility and not just the quickest easiest solution. It is the willingness to go through all that G-d intends of mortal existence (Jesus Christ being the foremost example).

If a scientist doesn't consider all factors then they should not call themselves a scientist. Many people are lazy, but that doesn't mean not being lazy is humble. It's just not being lazy and being persevering instead. I take a scientific approach to the the Bible and Christianity so all ideas derived from them are theories that can at any time do a 180 just like in science. The discovery of the Higgs Boson is going to flip many things upside down. I think humility is a concept that has been lost on many because it's an overused term in most religions. Humility is not something you just accomplish, it's part of the ebb and flow of life and the universe. Humility is a very godly trait and requires true enlightenment to portray and fully understand.

Regards,

-Sabastious

[Seminarysnoozer]

The talk was pretty good, actually. I did enjoy it and I hope I understood the message correctly. But I'm curious now if NOT believing isn't so black and white - non believer versus believer. Can you say that intellectually there is no God and yet say that spiritually you have a feeling (even if an inkling) that there is one but you won't acknowledge it because your brain/science/media/whatever cannot compute God + Reality?

Absolutely! You have described the difference between our spirit and body. Spiritually, our spirit knows a lot more than what is available to our thought process right now because of the veil. The veil might as well be the body itself as far as this goes. To listen to the spirit, our own spirit and the knowledge and testimony we all have proven by our acceptance and passing the first estate, requires putting off the carnal state we find ourselves in. In other words, by not listening to carnal influences the "beliefs" of the spirit, or the light of Christ is revealed. It is always there, it never went away, it is just that in this current condition of existing as a dual being both body and spirit, the body's influence is naturally more powerful than the spirit. This is exactly why the natural man is an enemy to God. The default thought pattern, influence and beliefs are one's that pull away from spirituality unless we do something about that. Unless we keep ourselves pure and humble the spiritual influences become mute to the point of not "computing God + Reality". This is what is described in the Bible as obscuration of the right eye.

It all comes down to what aspect of one's dual being rules, the body or the spirit. I believe it to be very difficult to let the spirit rule, this is why it is called the still small voice and takes a lot of effort to hear its influences. But if nothing is done then one's ability to even hear the still small voice fades into zero influence. I tend to believe (this is not LDS gospel, just my own view) that for most of us, including myself, our thought patterns, actions, personality, memory, knowledge, mannerisms, traits etc. are mostly body and very little influenced by our spiritual self in this life. I would venture to say that our spiritual self shines through maybe less than 1% of what we call "our self", while here. The rest of it is purely brain and all the earthly things that influence it like you mentioned, science/media etc. The key, though, is to recognize the source and to make that 1% more influential in our daily lives and that takes constant effort.

[Traveler]

Absolutely! You have described the difference between our spirit and body. Spiritually, our spirit knows a lot more than what is available to our thought process right now because of the veil. The veil might as well be the body itself as far as this goes. To listen to the spirit, our own spirit and the knowledge and testimony we all have proven by our acceptance and passing the first estate, requires putting off the carnal state we find ourselves in. In other words, by not listening to carnal influences the "beliefs" of the spirit, or the light of Christ is revealed. It is always there, it never went away, it is just that in this current condition of existing as a dual being both body and spirit, the body's influence is naturally more powerful than the spirit. This is exactly why the natural man is an enemy to God. The default thought pattern, influence and beliefs are one's that pull away from spirituality unless we do something about that. Unless we keep ourselves pure and humble the spiritual influences become mute to the point of not "computing God + Reality". This is what is described in the Bible as obscuration of the right eye.

It all comes down to what aspect of one's dual being rules, the body or the spirit. I believe it to be very difficult to let the spirit rule, this is why it is called the still small voice and takes a lot of effort to hear its influences. But if nothing is done then one's ability to even hear the still small voice fades into zero influence. I tend to believe (this is not LDS gospel, just my own view) that for most of us, including myself, our thought patterns, actions, personality, memory, knowledge, mannerisms, traits etc. are mostly body and very little influenced by our spiritual self in this life. I would venture to say that our spiritual self shines through maybe less than 1% of what we call "our self", while here. The rest of it is purely brain and all the earthly things that influence it like you mentioned, science/media etc. The key, though, is to recognize the source and to make that 1% more influential in our daily lives and that takes constant effort.

Can you give us an example of something that is spiritual and not physical? Or vice versa? For example is our body to be considered a physical thing or the tabernacle (temple) of our spirit?

The Traveler

[Bensalem]

Yesterday at church there was a talk given on Agency, although, it seemed to touch base on everything underneath the sun. One aspect was the idea that the seed of knowledge (knowing that God is) is in all of us, regardless of who we are, where we come from, or what our intellectual brains tell us but when we don't grow that seed - we don't grow and we don't acknowledge God. The speaker continued that one may identify himself as Atheist but that this roots from an intellectual/social standpoint and not from a spiritual standpoint. He referred to his estranged son, who has had little contact with him over the many years, except for this last Fathers Day. His son is Atheist and confided to him that he feels that there is a divine power but that intellectually he just can't accept that there is a God.

The talk was pretty good, actually. I did enjoy it and I hope I understood the message correctly. But I'm curious now if NOT believing isn't so black and white - non believer versus believer. Can you say that intellectually there is no God and yet say that spiritually you have a feeling (even if an inkling) that there is one but you won't acknowledge it because your brain/science/media/whatever cannot compute God + Reality?

Edited To Add..

I'm NOT referring to knowing that the Gospel is true. That comes with a sincere and humble heart of prayer, fasting and reading the BOM. I'm referring to acknowledging that there is a God.

Intellect often gets in the way of nurturing the seed which can grow into a knowledge of God. Humility (understanding we do not know everything) in faith fertilizes the seed and allows the Holy Ghost to testify to us that there is a God.

Atheists often use the quote "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (Carl Sagan) adopted by their "leader", Christopher Hitchens. They are essentially demanding a sign in the context of harboring pure doubt. God cannot reveal Himself in a vacuum of doubt. Only in sure faith can the Holy Ghost be known.

I suppose there are some who can intellectually deny God (for lack of evidence) and yet maintain a hope that there is a God. And as we know in the LDS church, hope is a form of faith in that which we cannot see.

[Traveler]

Intellect often gets in the way of nurturing the seed which can grow into a knowledge of God. Humility (understanding we do not know everything) in faith fertilizes the seed and allows the Holy Ghost to testify to us that there is a God.

Atheists often use the quote "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (Carl Sagan) adopted by their "leader", Christopher Hitchens. They are essentially demanding a sign in the context of harboring pure doubt. God cannot reveal Himself in a vacuum of doubt. Only in sure faith can the Holy Ghost be known.

I suppose there are some who can intellectually deny God (for lack of evidence) and yet maintain a hope that there is a God. And as we know in the LDS church, hope is a form of faith in that which we cannot see.

Pseudo Intellectual thinking gets in the way of everything. But what about true intellect? Intelligence and intellect are in essence the same thing and that which is spiritual is also intelligent - the light of truth. I submit that there is no difference between true intellect and being spiritual - That the Holy Ghost is pure intelligence (intellect).

The Traveler

Edited July 16, 2012 by Traveler

[Bensalem]

Pseudo Intellectual thinking gets in the way of everything. But what about true intellect? Intelligence and intellect are in essence the same thing and that which is spiritual is also intelligent - the light of truth. I submit that there is no difference between true intellect and being spiritual - That the Holy Ghost is pure intelligence (intellect).

The Traveler

I agree that "the Holy Ghost is pure intelligence (intellect)" but what about those who claim spirituality or spiritual insight outside of an understanding of the Holy Ghost and who he speaks to? And couldn't the spiritual intellect of the devil also influence the human intellect?

[Traveler]

I agree that "the Holy Ghost is pure intelligence (intellect)" but what about those who claim spirituality or spiritual insight outside of an understanding of the Holy Ghost and who he speaks to? And couldn't the spiritual intellect of the devil also influence the human intellect?

Are you asking me about an intelligent person or a foolish person? I would think that answer is obvious - the more intelligent a person the less likely they fall for something not so intelligent.

One thing - there is a difference between being intelligent and smart. I discovered many years ago that almost everybody that is passed off as being smart really is not any more intelligent that most others - escept the studied what is being considered.

The Traveler

[Misshalfway]

Satan is no dumb bunny.

[Bensalem]

Are you asking me about an intelligent person or a foolish person? I would think that answer is obvious - the more intelligent a person the less likely they fall for something not so intelligent.

One thing - there is a difference between being intelligent and smart. I discovered many years ago that almost everybody that is passed off as being smart really is not any more intelligent that most others - escept the studied what is being considered.

The Traveler

I'm suggesting that intellect paired with spirituality does not always protect us from the devil's intellect paired with his lies. Intellect paired with the Holy Ghost does (although I am sure it is not foolproof).

Many intelligent people claim spirituality but are mislead; fewer are mislead who have the Gift of the Holy Ghost offered at the hands of Christ's priesthood.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Satan is no dumb bunny.

But Satan doesn't know the mind of God and likely doesn't care about truth either. What he cares about is making us miserable like himself. In other words he is after emotional effect. This is why he placed the temptation in the "heart" of the serpent, not the brain.

Korihor, the anti-Christ assistant for example, led away the "hearts" of the saints. That is the focus. Satan's deception comes by way of what people would call learned people, like Korihor but the real goal is the heart so the speech is demeaning and negative and designed to stir emotional feelings of guilt and despair. On the surface, the world would call them intelligent but that is a guise of epistomologic deception. He is not acting logically at all, he is acting under his emotional driven anger. Satan doesn't care about smart versus not smart, intelligent versus dumb etc. As in 2 Nephi 28, he will "rage in the hearts of the children of men", he will "pacify" and flatter, he doesn't instruct or teach or enlighten.

On the other hand God wants us to serve with all our heart might mind and strength. God cares about the mind but first is heart.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Pseudo Intellectual thinking gets in the way of everything. But what about true intellect? Intelligence and intellect are in essence the same thing and that which is spiritual is also intelligent - the light of truth. I submit that there is no difference between true intellect and being spiritual - That the Holy Ghost is pure intelligence (intellect).

The Traveler

Absolutely, but the difficulty is accessing that which is spiritual. Most people cannot distinguish pseudo-intellect from intelligence. They also cannot easily distinguish carnal from spiritual. But that is exactly the test we face here. The carnal mind is "pleasing" therefore convinces people that what they believe has to be true whereas spiritual influences are subtle and difficult to maintain, requiring a broken and contrite heart.

Korihor explains it well; Alma 30 "53 But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth, even until I have brought this great fcurse upon me."

People sometimes believe that they know the truth because the words are "pleasing to the carnal mind". Failure to distinguish the "carnal mind" from the "spiritual mind" is where most of the problem lies. When people start to think they are one in the same then they have lost their ability to distinguish spiritual influences. This is described in the Bible as obscuration of the right eye. Zechariah 11:17 "17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened."

[Traveler]

Absolutely, but the difficulty is accessing that which is spiritual. Most people cannot distinguish pseudo-intellect from intelligence. They also cannot easily distinguish carnal from spiritual. But that is exactly the test we face here. The carnal mind is "pleasing" therefore convinces people that what they believe has to be true whereas spiritual influences are subtle and difficult to maintain, requiring a broken and contrite heart.

Korihor explains it well; Alma 30 "53 But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth, even until I have brought this great fcurse upon me."

People sometimes believe that they know the truth because the words are "pleasing to the carnal mind". Failure to distinguish the "carnal mind" from the "spiritual mind" is where most of the problem lies. When people start to think they are one in the same then they have lost their ability to distinguish spiritual influences. This is described in the Bible as obscuration of the right eye. Zechariah 11:17 "17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened."

I do not believe that true intellect is that difficult. Sometimes I am amazed how logically everything fits together. There is a wonderful example in the story of Cinderella when the “ugly” stepsister tried on the glass slipper and it did not fit but the ugly stepsister gleefully proclaimed that it fit perfectly! This is the logic of the pseudo intellectual - or as the scripture quoted - “the carnal mind”.

I submit that the means to discern intelligence is as clear as understanding the divine - G-d being the example of light, truth and intelligence. Why is that? Why is G-d so different? The difference is the same symbolically as the difference between light and darkness, truth and lies, good and evil and that difference is what draws us to take the very first step towards one or the other. The clue is in the very first step because light is drawn to light, truth to truth good to good (as well as the opposite, dark to darkness and so on). Using G-d (and Jesus) as the example of intelligence - what then is the first step? It is the step of discipline and self sacrifice. Everything of G-d is an act of discipline and self sacrifice; which is the glory and intelligence of G-d.

The opposite is also true - the first step of evil, pseudo intelligence, the carnal mind or foolishness - that is the abandonment of discipline and self sacrifice to indulge self, being the engine of carnal.

Light, truth, goodness and intelligence is not data, information or even facts but the employment and use of them. For Satan can use the same data, information and facts used by G-d - even from Holy Scripture! - in an appeal to the selfish and the carnal.

The battle of intelligence to overcome the natural man begins at birth (as a minimum) - to learn to give on one’s self and to resist the temptation to take for one’s self.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I do not believe that true intellect is that difficult. Sometimes I am amazed how logically everything fits together. There is a wonderful example in the story of Cinderella when the “ugly” stepsister tried on the glass slipper and it did not fit but the ugly stepsister gleefully proclaimed that it fit perfectly! This is the logic of the pseudo intellectual - or as the scripture quoted - “the carnal mind”.

I submit that the means to discern intelligence is as clear as understanding the divine - G-d being the example of light, truth and intelligence. Why is that? Why is G-d so different? The difference is the same symbolically as the difference between light and darkness, truth and lies, good and evil and that difference is what draws us to take the very first step towards one or the other. The clue is in the very first step because light is drawn to light, truth to truth good to good (as well as the opposite, dark to darkness and so on). Using G-d (and Jesus) as the example of intelligence - what then is the first step? It is the step of discipline and self sacrifice. Everything of G-d is an act of discipline and self sacrifice; which is the glory and intelligence of G-d.

The opposite is also true - the first step of evil, pseudo intelligence, the carnal mind or foolishness - that is the abandonment of discipline and self sacrifice to indulge self, being the engine of carnal.

Light, truth, goodness and intelligence is not data, information or even facts but the employment and use of them. For Satan can use the same data, information and facts used by G-d - even from Holy Scripture! - in an appeal to the selfish and the carnal.

The battle of intelligence to overcome the natural man begins at birth (as a minimum) - to learn to give on one’s self and to resist the temptation to take for one’s self.

The Traveler

Great example, thanks. I am glad you find it so easy but for most it is not so easy.

In the example you gave the sister was wrapped up in her emotion of wanting it to fit, so much so that to her it was real. This is why in converting people to truth it is not easily done through logically explaining or empiricism - "see look, the shoe doesn't fit". Their heart has to be in the right place first before logic is seen correctly.

Most people's epistemological view of truth doesn't include spiritual confirmation or even listening to spiritual influences and the false perception of the brain becomes truth even though the brain can make up sensual perception. In other words, the brain can and does lie to us every day. For example, there is a blind spot in your visual field that is not perceived because the brain fills in the information with presumed visual stimuli from surrounding neurons. That visual information is made up. etc. etc.

Thanks.