Originally posted in the "God's accountant, etc." thread in response to a post that cited I Corinthians 2:14.
We obviously don't look at I Cor. 2:14 the same way. I see it as Paul's way of inoculating his followers against the Reason virus.
Usually, if someone disagrees with you, you respond by presenting additional evidence or reframing your argument. In one fell swoop, Paul makes that unnecessary by declaring his opponents incapable of grasping his concept because they lack what I [jokingly] call the Magic Decoder Ring.
"How can he possibly understand the things of the spirit? He doesn't have what it takes?"
"What's that? evidence?"
"No, spiritual discernment!"
"What's spiritual discernment?"
"It's the God-given capacity to understand what I'm saying is true."
"So it's a magic decoder ring that suddenly transforms your thesis from bulls hit to enlightenment."
"Well when you put it like that it sounds silly and disrespectful. It's more like, when you humble yourself, God opens the eyes of your understanding."
"Ah, so it's not a magic decoder ring at all."
"Exactly."
"It's gullibility."
...
Note how in that conversation we go from "Paul's message doesn't make sense," which focuses on the message as the subject matter, to "It's a Yahweh thing; You wouldn't understand," which focuses on the rejector of the message as the subject.
I Corinthians 2:14 is an ad hominem attack on anyone who hears or reads Paul's message and concludes it's a crock.
Ok while I do understand the dilemma accepting a spiritual world where different concepts come to the forefront, the language here is pretty emotionally strong.
”ad hominem attack”
”gullibility”
”magic decoder ring”
”the reason virus”
I really don’t view that in a fundamentalist pattern that you “can’t understand” but more like you are so invested in proving it wrong that your entire reasoning is after one kind of knowledge and shutting out any other kind of knowledge.
I will leave it to the cults to define that in such a narrow minded fashion it cuts over into inherent ability to understand with Great Principle charts.
Isn't that really just another way to grasp the concept of indoctrination? It's in the news these days from the fearful perspective of parents afraid of the indoctrination their kids might get in public schools, right?
Do we want our children indoctrinated to accept reason or superstition?
IOW, do we view indoctrination from a perspective of the future, or from our own accumulated body of knowledge and how we understand the world?
Well, children are inherently gullible, aren't they? Weren't we, way back when?
It seems to me Raf made a reasonable, likely quite sound argument.
"Magic decoder ring" seems like an apt description of what was taught in the Advanced Class on PFLAP.
I remember clearly, during that indoctrination session, pondering my thoughts (stream of consciousness) wondering whether I was receiving revelation.
Then in residence with the 9th corpse (just a few short months hence) when the entire student body at Emporia was asked for clues to some actual mystery (not so fictional whodunit) and all I could come up with was one person's name. My thoughts were out of the blue and irrational. I offered my "revelation." My "insight" was never acted on.
Reason, intellect and other types of thinking can only go so far. Spiritual understanding goes further, how far, I don't know.
Seems to me the things thought foolish might be looked into a bit further if seeking spiritual understanding. Reminds me of vpw being against spiritualism, could be that he never understood it.
Even with spiritualism and spirit understanding, reason still has much to do.
Reason, intellect and other types of thinking can only go so far. Spiritual understanding goes further, how far, I don't know.
Would you please explain how you came to believe spiritual understanding goes further? I don't believe that claim, but I'm open (at the moment) to considering it.
Can you "explain" that? Doubt it.... I'm sure there are many times we each had known something that there was no reasonable explanation for knowing it.
Can you "explain" that? Doubt it.... I'm sure there are many times we each had known something that there was no reasonable explanation for knowing it.
Oh. Okay. How would you explain how such "knowing" came or comes to be?
I am aware there are things beyond what humans are capable of perceiving by way of our five senses.
I also understand such phenomena aren't limited to bible believing Christians.
Others, not from a Christian perspective, I've read describe such as synchronistic events.
Originally posted in the "God's accountant, etc." thread in response to a post that cited I Corinthians 2:14.
We obviously don't look at I Cor. 2:14 the same way. I see it as Paul's way of inoculating his followers against the Reason virus.
Usually, if someone disagrees with you, you respond by presenting additional evidence or reframing your argument. In one fell swoop, Paul makes that unnecessary by declaring his opponents incapable of grasping his concept because they lack what I [jokingly] call the Magic Decoder Ring.
"How can he possibly understand the things of the spirit? He doesn't have what it takes?"
"What's that? evidence?"
"No, spiritual discernment!"
"What's spiritual discernment?"
"It's the God-given capacity to understand what I'm saying is true."
"So it's a magic decoder ring that suddenly transforms your thesis from bulls hit to enlightenment."
"Well when you put it like that it sounds silly and disrespectful. It's more like, when you humble yourself, God opens the eyes of your understanding."
"Ah, so it's not a magic decoder ring at all."
"Exactly."
"It's gullibility."
...
Note how in that conversation we go from "Paul's message doesn't make sense," which focuses on the message as the subject matter, to "It's a Yahweh thing; You wouldn't understand," which focuses on the rejector of the message as the subject.
I Corinthians 2:14 is an ad hominem attack on anyone who hears or reads Paul's message and concludes it's a crock.
23 hours ago, Rocky said:
People "understand" what's familiar to them.
Isn't that really just another way to grasp the concept of indoctrination? It's in the news these days from the fearful perspective of parents afraid of the indoctrination their kids might get in public schools, right?
Do we want our children indoctrinated to accept reason or superstition?
IOW, do we view indoctrination from a perspective of the future, or from our own accumulated body of knowledge and how we understand the world?
Well, children are inherently gullible, aren't they? Weren't we, way back when?
It seems to me Raf made a reasonable, likely quite sound argument.
"Magic decoder ring" seems like an apt description of what was taught in the Advanced Class on PFLAP.
I remember clearly, during that indoctrination session, pondering my thoughts (stream of consciousness) wondering whether I was receiving revelation.
Then in residence with the 9th corpse (just a few short months hence) when the entire student body at Emporia was asked for clues to some actual mystery (not so fictional whodunit) and all I could come up with was one person's name. My thoughts were out of the blue and irrational. I offered my "revelation." My "insight" was never acted on.
18 hours ago, Rocky said:
Oh. Okay. How would you explain how such "knowing" came or comes to be?
I am aware there are things beyond what humans are capable of perceiving by way of our five senses.
I also understand such phenomena aren't limited to bible believing Christians.
Others, not from a Christian perspective, I've read describe such as synchronistic events.
Paine challenged superstition, but didn't prove the impossibility of synchronicity.
I’ll pick up with comments about Paine’s The Age of Reason - thanks for the link, Rocky.
“Paine advocates reason in the place ofrevelation, leading him to rejectmiraclesand to view the Bible as an ordinary piece of literature, rather than a divinely-inspired text. InThe Age of Reason, he promotesnatural religionand argues for the existence of acreator god.”
Christianity is considered a revealed religion - in other words it’s based on the revelation by God to humankind- the ideas would not have been arrived at by natural reason alone…by definition the metaphysical is beyond the 5 senses
if there is anything beyond what we can sense , we need another way to perceive it.
what about the “other side” ? Are there “metaphysical beings” who move between “worlds” ? Was there an initiative to reveal some stuff about the unseen realm? Maybe the attraction of religion is the hope of connecting to the “otherness”.
as I Corinthians 2 explains:
1And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.a2For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.3I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling.4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power,5so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.
6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.7No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.9However, as it is written:
“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”
the things God has prepared for those who love him—
10these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.11For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.12What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.
14The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.15The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments,16for,
*rather than starting off with Internet definitions for things already touched upon - I’ve listed them after my comments.
~ ~ ~ ~
portraying religion as a vaccine to fight reason is to cast them as enemies rather than allies. I understand Christianity to be a religion where faith and reason are complementary. II Corinthians 5:7 says we walk by faith and not by sight. It does NOT say we walk by faith and not by reason. The combination of faith and reason is also implied inHebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Rocky brought up synchronicity - where we look for meaning. But meaning is intangible and relative and it’s possible to misinterpret a supposedly correlation of events…but I think meaning is something we seek. Why is it difficult to see the correlation? Is it because something inside us is broken?
I believe we were created as social beings. Something got really messed up in the fall of humankind in Genesis. We got separated from something essential - being connected with God and each other…why God didn’t fix things immediately is not known. Some scholars with expertise in the biblical languages and cultures understand the death associated with the first sin of humankind to be twofold in its impact - a figurative death of the spirit - separation from God, and long term there were physical consequences too.
In I Corinthians 2 Paul gets into God revealing Himself through the life of Jesus Christ. This is in contrast to worldly wisdom - a wisdom that doesn’t acknowledge God. I believe verses4 & 5 speak of the unique time of the apostolic period - Paul and the other apostles had authentication by the power of God.
In my opinion wierwille was a phony teaching people how to fake speaking in tongues to insinuate himself as having the same apostolic status as Paul.
I don’t think this chapter promotes a magic decoder ring. That would be something external. Instead it revolves around the internal “faith” , “accept”. Paul is not making a personal attack on anyone in particular but rather is challenging the position of those who do not accept the revelation of God.
The contrast between natural and spirit is a common motif of Paul - and more so than believer or unbeliever here - - it often highlights the battle within ourselves like inRomans 8
The latter part of chapter 2 is how we reconnect in a relationship with him. I think my gullibility associated with PFAL and the Advanced Class is perhaps a failure on my part- falling for the pseudo-intellectualism of wierwille instead of seeking a personal relationship with Jesus Christ - wierwille’s con was “the Word takes the place of the absent Christ”.
Initially it is the Bible - the Word of God that revitalizes our spirit - and there’s also something self-authenticating about Scripture -remember the words of Jesus Christ in John 7:17 “Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.” I believe there’s something to this verse that might have to do with how our intuition and God may work together – in that metaphysical truth is self-authenticating through the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit – perhaps that is also implied in passages like John 16:13 and I John 2:27 .
So no magic decoder ring- more like an ongoing relationship
~ ~ ~ ~
*internet definitions for reference points
Social intelligence is the capacity to know oneself and to know others. Social intelligence is learned and develops from experience with people and learning from success and failures in social settings. Social intelligence is the ability to understand your own and others actions.
Gullibility is a failure of social intelligence in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action.
Discern: to recognize or identify as separate and distinct; discriminate. discern right from wrong; to come to know or recognize mentally. unable to discern his motives; to perceive by the sight or some other sense or by the intellect; see, recognize, or apprehend: They discerned a sail on the horizon.
to have understanding : have the power of comprehension. :to achieve a grasp of the nature, significance, or explanation of something; to believe or infer something to be the case.
ad hominem argument is one that is directed against the opposing person rather than the position they’re maintaining. It can be a clear direct attack against their character or more subtly cast doubt on their personal motives. An ad hominem argument is often used so that one can undermine their opposition’s case without having to directly confront and dispute it. Normally facts are ignored in favor of appealing to emotions and prejudices.
Superstition: a widely held butunjustifiedbelief in supernaturalcausationleading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief.
Synchronicitydescribes circumstances that appearmeaningfully relatedyet lack acausal connectionand refers to one'ssubjective experiencethatcoincidencesbetween events in one's mind and the outside world may be causally unrelated to each other yet have some other unknown connection…
Rocky brought up synchronicity - where we look for meaning. But meaning is intangible and relative and it’s possible to misinterpret a supposedly correlation of events…but I think meaning is something we seek. Why is it difficult to see the correlation? Is it because something inside us is broken?
IOW, synchronicity is subjective.
40 minutes ago, T-Bone said:
Superstition: a widely held butunjustifiedbelief in supernaturalcausationleading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief.
Synchronicitydescribes circumstances that appearmeaningfully relatedyet lack acausal connectionand refers to one'ssubjective experiencethatcoincidencesbetween events in one's mind and the outside world may be causally unrelated to each other yet have some other unknown connection…
It is perhaps both intangible and tangible at the same time.
Now we're at the point where there are more comments than I can possibly answer efficiently. So either I get long winded and address every point, thereby making myself look obsessed with this topic, or I just let some points go unaddressed, leaving the impression that I do not have a comeback.
Fortunately I have enough of a record here that I can honestly ask: Do you really think I could not write a book-length reply to these points complete with footnotes and hyperlinks? And I think you all know the answer is, yeah, he could probably do that.
But on a relaxed timetable. Hope you don't mind...
Now we're at the point where there are more comments than I can possibly answer efficiently. So either I get long winded and address every point, thereby making myself look obsessed with this topic, or I just let some points go unaddressed, leaving the impression that I do not have a comeback.
Fortunately I have enough of a record here that I can honestly ask: Do you really think I could not write a book-length reply to these points complete with footnotes and hyperlinks? And I think you all know the answer is, yeah, he could probably do that.
But on a relaxed timetable. Hope you don't mind...
No worries. I know there are a couple of verses in Proverbs that talk about the dilemma of whether or not to answer a fool after his folly.
portraying religion as a vaccine to fight reason is to cast them as enemies rather than allies. I understand Christianity to be a religion where faith and reason are complementary.
A good note to keep in mind. Not only Christianity but other faiths as well, just labels though, I don't like labels, they tend to be narrow minded.
A good note to keep in mind. Not only Christianity but other faiths as well, just labels though, I don't like labels, they tend to be narrow minded.
Right. Christianity is the only religion I’m somewhat familiar with. Narrow mindedness is probably relative - and I tend to be more inclusive compared to say a fundamentalist who is typically exclusive. Labels can be helpful - some specificity is needed otherwise we could be talking about anything, everything or nothing - then it’s meaningless.
I went with Raf’s opening post mention of I Corinthians 2:14 - and that’s why I quoted the whole chapter, as an example of a revealed religion versus the natural religion of reason that Paine promoted. Don’t think I was clear enough in my post to show that’s what I think Paul was arguing for - a revealed religion versus a natural religion - “the wisdom of this world “…but that’s just my take on it - I could be wrong.
I wasn’t meaning to be argumentative - just putting my goofball ideas in the mix to posit the thought that faith and religion doesn’t always mean that reason goes out the window - that’s just my opinion of course.
Ok, a lot to unpack here, but thank you for the follow-up post, T-Bone. It reduces the amount of time I need to spend replying (and this is still a long-@$$ post).
Obviously you guys think you're right and I won't change your mind. And I think I'm right and I won't change my mind. Best I can do is articulate my reply in light of your responses so that others reading can see that we're listening to each other and not just talking past each other.
With that in mind:
Chockfull: Yes, I did use rather strong terms. But consider the terms used by the Bible's writers to describe those who reject their message. We are "without excuse." We're "lawless." We're the "darkness" to your "light." We are "ignorant" and "hard-hearted." "Blinded."
We are numbered among the "cowardly, detestable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and liars."
Did I get to "evil" yet? [Checks notes. Nope.] "Evil."
We've been captured by the devil and doing his will.
Pollutants.
Defiled in mind and conscience.
Like a dog eating its own vomit.
So yeah, I use words like "magic decoder ring" to describe something that you need in order to decode (discern) a message. But (T-Bone says) a ring is external, whereas spirit is internal. Fine. Call it "taking the blue pill" to allow you to see the truth. We unbelievers take the red pill and enjoy living blissfully in the Matrix.
I use words like gullible.
Emotionally strong? I submit these terms I used are TAME by comparison to the terms used by the Bible to describe me.
Which is not to say that you've used those terms.
Back to T-Bone: I did not say religion IS a vaccine against reason. I thought I was clear. Religion HAS a vaccine against reason. So let's explore what I mean by that (without going into unnecessary detail).
Paul goes to great lengths to differentiate between the wisdom of the world and "God's wisdom." Why distinguish? In context, we see that it's because "God's wisdom" leads to a conclusion that the wisdom of the world finds "foolish." So what IS the wisdom of the world? It's wise. It's persuasive. It's human.
It's reason. It's "senses reasoning" as we would call it in TWI (hooray! they got something right!).
As T-Bone said, "just my take on it; I could be wrong."
Here's MY take on it: I could be wrong.
Paul knows that reasonable people listened to his pitch and rejected it as foolish. He knows other Christians are going to face the same opposition he did when they try to preach the word he was teaching them. So he needs something to counter the "philosophies of men" (aka reason) his people are bound to encounter. So I develop the imperfect analogy that reason is a disease, and it's in need of a vaccine. What's the vaccine? Verses that redirect the debate from the subject matter to the participants in the discussion. "You have the spirit of God. You get it. You took the blue pill. You have the decoder ring. Not those people. They don't understand our message because they can't. It's not because the message makes no sense. It makes perfect sense... to people with the ring, people who took the right pill, people with Spirit. People with humility. You ARE humble, aren't you? You have God's wisdom, right? Not like those people."
Yeah, that is the definition of ad hominem. When you say "those people lack the capacity to even understand what I'm talking about," you have changed the debate from being about ideas to being about people.
That verse, that tactic, is the vaccine. It doesn't address the conclusion reached by the natural man. It addresses the natural man himself and declares him incapable of properly assessing the evidence.
Religion can employ reason, and it often does. But there comes a point when reason ceases to agree with what a religion is peddling. Where it outright rejects it. "Maybe there were six denials instead of three." No. That makes no sense. They all said three. "Maybe there was more than one cursed fig tree." No, that's just excuse-making to account for the discrepancy in the accounts. "Maybe Judas didn't immediately go and kill himself." No, Paul just screwed up when he said Jesus was seen of the Twelve. Or maybe he counted Matthias. Or maybe it was so tangential to the point he was making that he just didn't care. The point is Matthew was pretty clear on the timing of Judas' death. "There were two fields of blood..." No, there was just one.
I chose examples we are most likely to agree on, but the ones that are relevant to this discussion are weightier. Like the ransom. To whom was the price paid? Why is a human sacrifice necessary in the first place? Why does redemption require a brutal death? And it gets deeper.
I'm not inviting a debate on those questions, primarily because we are not going to resolve them.
But Paul is terrified of that debate and needs to short-circuit it before we get there. That's why he redirects it. The rejection of his message couldn't possibly be due to a flaw in the message. It has to be a flaw in the person rejecting it.
"Of course he doesn't get it! What do you expect from a natural man?"
Raf, for the record I tentatively think I’m right only on a thing or two …and I’m not sure what they are.
You said:
Religion can employ reason, and it often does. But there comes a point when reason ceases to agree with what a religion is peddling. Where it outright rejects it. "Maybe there were six denials instead of three." No. That makes no sense. They all said three. "Maybe there was more than one cursed fig tree." No, that's just excuse-making to account for the discrepancy in the accounts.
End of quote
I wonder if the twisted bull-$hit PEDDLED by a pseudo-Christian cult-leader like wierwille has tainted your viewpoint.
I say that because your post mixes the natural sense of scripture with the nonsense of wierwille ideology.
I will not soften the brutal truth of the gospel message - nor will I argue for its REASON. I got into that on another thread - My post on A Loving Father?
So I’m not going to bore anyone to tears or Zs again rehashing the why of the message, the need for sacrifice and redemption - and there’s probably some confirmation bias on my part because the gospel message makes sense to me - per the narrative of the Bible and regardless of the nonsense that wierwille peddled which in my opinion obfuscated the simple message of the Bible…”it makes sense” can be a problematic debate if there’s not a reference point or standard we can agree upon for what makes something intelligible, justified or have meaning…I know I’m probably muddying up this discussion - I think you Raf are better at articulating and citing nuances - so feel free to tell me what I’m trying to say - just kidding - the compliment is no joke - just expressing frustration with my lack of communication skills.
And I don’t mean to come off as self-righteous or put myself above anyone- I’m just as flawed as anyone else - so count me in your assessment with the "lawless” the "darkness", the “ignorant" and "hard-hearted” , “Blinded” , the "cowardly, detestable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and liars - I am a great a$$-hole in my own right - and if there is a judgement throne that I must appear before - I plan on being a blubbering idiot on my knees throwing myself at the mercy of the judge - and who (besides the Lord) knows how that fiasco will turn out?
I never said or implied that anyone lacks the capacity to understand what I’m talking about. Maybe you and I have different ideas about how a higher power would reveal their personhood…it would seem to me that it’s contradictory or counterproductive for the Creator to require His creation have a nebulous thing called “spirit” to know about Him unless everyone already had it - otherwise it’s sort of like the what came first the chicken or the egg conundrum.
to elaborate on my comments of I Cor.2 in my earlier post - there is probably a deeper idea of Christian being enlightened further - as scripture like Ephesians 1: 17 & ff seem to suggest - but to flat out say the “natural man” can’t accept the gospel message goes against Romans 10 - faith comes by hearing the Word of God.
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
It seems silly to think Paul was terrified of a debate over the means and method of redemption since he put all his cards on the table with the simple gospel message. He unapologetically puts the message out there - theologically…biblically there are no issues to resolve. As a revealed religion the basic tenets of Christianity come with the territory of the Bible. If this is another thinly disguised point / counterpoint religion versus atheism episode - well sorry I messed up once again.
Just a thought - respectfully, maybe you are inadvertently redirecting the discussion to find fault in the message - that it is somehow flawed. That’s entirely possible. But if it is a revealed religion that posits we are ALL flawed - then it comes down to me either accepting or rejecting that religion’s assessment of my status.
If the message is flawed because it’s not God-inspired or simply there is no God - then those are topics for another discussion. I believe - and I could be wrong - the wisdom of the world is foolish when it lacks the sense to correlate things like the wonders of the physical world or the amazing technology and industry of humankind as a reflection of the Creator.
~ ~ ~ ~
FYI in the Matrix red & blue pill analogy - the main character Neo is offered the CHOICE between a red pill and a blue pill by rebel leader Morpheus. The RED pill will enable Neo to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth...I think the red and blue pills was just a symbolic tool to show it all revolves around one’s CHOICE, a simple willful act of accepting or rejecting…same with the vaccine as a symbol of choice. That CHOICE stimulates immunity - are we talking confirmation bias ? Maybe so…also it’s possible a person’s ego, pride or some other unidentified factor may inoculate them against accepting the gospel message.
Originally posted in the "God's accountant, etc." thread in response to a post that cited I Corinthians 2:14.
We obviously don't look at I Cor. 2:14 the same way. I see it as Paul's way of inoculating his followers against the Reason virus.
Usually, if someone disagrees with you, you respond by presenting additional evidence or reframing your argument. In one fell swoop, Paul makes that unnecessary by declaring his opponents incapable of grasping his concept because they lack what I [jokingly] call the Magic Decoder Ring.
"How can he possibly understand the things of the spirit? He doesn't have what it takes?"
"What's that? evidence?"
"No, spiritual discernment!"
"What's spiritual discernment?"
"It's the God-given capacity to understand what I'm saying is true."
"So it's a magic decoder ring that suddenly transforms your thesis from bulls hit to enlightenment."
"Well when you put it like that it sounds silly and disrespectful. It's more like, when you humble yourself, God opens the eyes of your understanding."
"Ah, so it's not a magic decoder ring at all."
"Exactly."
"It's gullibility."
...
Note how in that conversation we go from "Paul's message doesn't make sense," which focuses on the message as the subject matter, to "It's a Yahweh thing; You wouldn't understand," which focuses on the rejector of the message as the subject.
I Corinthians 2:14 is an ad hominem attack on anyone who hears or reads Paul's message and concludes it's a crock.
The way I look at that verse is not an attack but a simple statement of how spiritual activity works, ie. spiritual things are spiritually discerned, assimilated, acted upon whereas reason is naturally or sensually (5-senses) discerned. Obviously we are 5-senses man but Paul explains that spiritual things are an additional realm that man can live in and those who don't will view the spiritual as a crock of foolishness.
Ok, a lot to unpack here, but thank you for the follow-up post, T-Bone. It reduces the amount of time I need to spend replying (and this is still a long-@$$ post).
Obviously you guys think you're right and I won't change your mind. And I think I'm right and I won't change my mind. Best I can do is articulate my reply in light of your responses so that others reading can see that we're listening to each other and not just talking past each other.
With that in mind:
Chockfull: Yes, I did use rather strong terms. But consider the terms used by the Bible's writers to describe those who reject their message. We are "without excuse." We're "lawless." We're the "darkness" to your "light." We are "ignorant" and "hard-hearted." "Blinded."
We are numbered among the "cowardly, detestable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and liars."
Did I get to "evil" yet? [Checks notes. Nope.] "Evil."
We've been captured by the devil and doing his will.
Pollutants.
Defiled in mind and conscience.
Like a dog eating its own vomit.
So yeah, I use words like "magic decoder ring" to describe something that you need in order to decode (discern) a message. But (T-Bone says) a ring is external, whereas spirit is internal. Fine. Call it "taking the blue pill" to allow you to see the truth. We unbelievers take the red pill and enjoy living blissfully in the Matrix.
I use words like gullible.
Emotionally strong? I submit these terms I used are TAME by comparison to the terms used by the Bible to describe me.
Which is not to say that you've used those terms.
Back to T-Bone: I did not say religion IS a vaccine against reason. I thought I was clear. Religion HAS a vaccine against reason. So let's explore what I mean by that (without going into unnecessary detail).
Paul goes to great lengths to differentiate between the wisdom of the world and "God's wisdom." Why distinguish? In context, we see that it's because "God's wisdom" leads to a conclusion that the wisdom of the world finds "foolish." So what IS the wisdom of the world? It's wise. It's persuasive. It's human.
It's reason. It's "senses reasoning" as we would call it in TWI (hooray! they got something right!).
As T-Bone said, "just my take on it; I could be wrong."
Here's MY take on it: I could be wrong.
Paul knows that reasonable people listened to his pitch and rejected it as foolish. He knows other Christians are going to face the same opposition he did when they try to preach the word he was teaching them. So he needs something to counter the "philosophies of men" (aka reason) his people are bound to encounter. So I develop the imperfect analogy that reason is a disease, and it's in need of a vaccine. What's the vaccine? Verses that redirect the debate from the subject matter to the participants in the discussion. "You have the spirit of God. You get it. You took the blue pill. You have the decoder ring. Not those people. They don't understand our message because they can't. It's not because the message makes no sense. It makes perfect sense... to people with the ring, people who took the right pill, people with Spirit. People with humility. You ARE humble, aren't you? You have God's wisdom, right? Not like those people."
Yeah, that is the definition of ad hominem. When you say "those people lack the capacity to even understand what I'm talking about," you have changed the debate from being about ideas to being about people.
That verse, that tactic, is the vaccine. It doesn't address the conclusion reached by the natural man. It addresses the natural man himself and declares him incapable of properly assessing the evidence.
Religion can employ reason, and it often does. But there comes a point when reason ceases to agree with what a religion is peddling. Where it outright rejects it. "Maybe there were six denials instead of three." No. That makes no sense. They all said three. "Maybe there was more than one cursed fig tree." No, that's just excuse-making to account for the discrepancy in the accounts. "Maybe Judas didn't immediately go and kill himself." No, Paul just screwed up when he said Jesus was seen of the Twelve. Or maybe he counted Matthias. Or maybe it was so tangential to the point he was making that he just didn't care. The point is Matthew was pretty clear on the timing of Judas' death. "There were two fields of blood..." No, there was just one.
I chose examples we are most likely to agree on, but the ones that are relevant to this discussion are weightier. Like the ransom. To whom was the price paid? Why is a human sacrifice necessary in the first place? Why does redemption require a brutal death? And it gets deeper.
I'm not inviting a debate on those questions, primarily because we are not going to resolve them.
But Paul is terrified of that debate and needs to short-circuit it before we get there. That's why he redirects it. The rejection of his message couldn't possibly be due to a flaw in the message. It has to be a flaw in the person rejecting it.
"Of course he doesn't get it! What do you expect from a natural man?"
And that was the SHORT version of my reply.
I get the idea that if you take all the strong terms in the Bible that are negative and personalize them to the point that whether it is taking of Herod, Pharisees, Sadducee’s, the devil in temptations, various descriptions of spiritual entities if you lump together all of those audiences and take them to mean yourself I can see where you would feel categorically attacked. And as such use strong language in response.
The idea I would present back is some of the natural man verses spiritual man imagery could have to do with being familiar enough with the spiritual audiences in scripture that you do not take everything personally as a frontal attack or ad hominem attack but rather realize those described in negative words like that are specific to audience and circumstance of the story and not generally applicable to all of different or no faiths or religions.
Discrepancies in the harmony of the gospels are well known and I accept them and accept they may all be inaccurate in little details and may not be congruent. VPs work in JCOP was his attempt at this harmony in a way. I don’t accept fundamentalism in general so this is not a concern to me.
Paul was probably not terrified of any debate to be honest. With his background.
I kind of agree with your questions on the blood sacrifice and wonder why all that nonsense required the shedding of blood for payment. I guess it might have to do with the messiah fulfilling OT laws so it was a just trade for the new birth and those lives.
From my view even reason needs an anchor.
You can’t speak geometry without speaking of it taking point, line and plane on faith.
Paul was probably not terrified of any debate to be honest. With his background.
I don't think he was concerned about debating. I think he was concerned about his followers. He probably felt he could hold his own. But he also knew where to stop, as evidenced by the fact that instead of telling his followers "here are the facts to refute their arguments," he had to tell them "it's a spirit thing. They can't understand."
I don't think he was concerned about debating. I think he was concerned about his followers. He probably felt he could hold his own. But he also knew where to stop, as evidenced by the fact that instead of telling his followers "here are the facts to refute their arguments," he had to tell them "it's a spirit thing. They can't understand."
Your interpretation of this scripture is laughable. No real independent thinking. Just pfal stupid. This was a man writing to people who knew what he was talking about. They didn't consider or guess about what Paul was thinking or feeling.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
19
19
13
12
Popular Days
Nov 30
17
Mar 18
12
Mar 17
10
Mar 12
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 19 posts
cman 19 posts
chockfull 13 posts
Nathan_Jr 12 posts
Popular Days
Nov 30 2023
17 posts
Mar 18 2023
12 posts
Mar 17 2023
10 posts
Mar 12 2023
7 posts
Popular Posts
Stayed Too Long
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. This is one reference of the word faith in the bible and clearly states that whatever is hoped for is n
Raf
I absolutely agree. Back to the original analogy, a vaccine is injected into the healthy body. It is not sprayed in areas where the infecting virus might be. I can think of another "vaccine" tha
TLC
While it might not always be that obvious or apparent or easy to identify, all logic and reason starts with and builds on a premise that is simply accepted and presumed to be true, regardless of wheth
Posted Images
chockfull
Ok while I do understand the dilemma accepting a spiritual world where different concepts come to the forefront, the language here is pretty emotionally strong.
”ad hominem attack”
”gullibility”
”magic decoder ring”
”the reason virus”
I really don’t view that in a fundamentalist pattern that you “can’t understand” but more like you are so invested in proving it wrong that your entire reasoning is after one kind of knowledge and shutting out any other kind of knowledge.
I will leave it to the cults to define that in such a narrow minded fashion it cuts over into inherent ability to understand with Great Principle charts.
People understand the worlds they focus on.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
People "understand" what's familiar to them.
Isn't that really just another way to grasp the concept of indoctrination? It's in the news these days from the fearful perspective of parents afraid of the indoctrination their kids might get in public schools, right?
Do we want our children indoctrinated to accept reason or superstition?
IOW, do we view indoctrination from a perspective of the future, or from our own accumulated body of knowledge and how we understand the world?
Well, children are inherently gullible, aren't they? Weren't we, way back when?
It seems to me Raf made a reasonable, likely quite sound argument.
"Magic decoder ring" seems like an apt description of what was taught in the Advanced Class on PFLAP.
I remember clearly, during that indoctrination session, pondering my thoughts (stream of consciousness) wondering whether I was receiving revelation.
Then in residence with the 9th corpse (just a few short months hence) when the entire student body at Emporia was asked for clues to some actual mystery (not so fictional whodunit) and all I could come up with was one person's name. My thoughts were out of the blue and irrational. I offered my "revelation." My "insight" was never acted on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Reason, intellect and other types of thinking can only go so far. Spiritual understanding goes further, how far, I don't know.
Seems to me the things thought foolish might be looked into a bit further if seeking spiritual understanding. Reminds me of vpw being against spiritualism, could be that he never understood it.
Even with spiritualism and spirit understanding, reason still has much to do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Always.
Would you please explain how you came to believe spiritual understanding goes further? I don't believe that claim, but I'm open (at the moment) to considering it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Can you "explain" that? Doubt it.... I'm sure there are many times we each had known something that there was no reasonable explanation for knowing it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Oh. Okay. How would you explain how such "knowing" came or comes to be?
I am aware there are things beyond what humans are capable of perceiving by way of our five senses.
I also understand such phenomena aren't limited to bible believing Christians.
Others, not from a Christian perspective, I've read describe such as synchronistic events.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Then there's Paine's exposition on The Age of Reason.
Paine challenged superstition, but didn't prove the impossibility of synchronicity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Not ignoring the posts. Just making sure I don't pounce on every line of every post I disagree with.
Replying soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I’ll pick up with comments about Paine’s The Age of Reason - thanks for the link, Rocky.
“Paine advocates reason in the place of revelation, leading him to reject miracles and to view the Bible as an ordinary piece of literature, rather than a divinely-inspired text. In The Age of Reason, he promotes natural religion and argues for the existence of a creator god.”
Christianity is considered a revealed religion - in other words it’s based on the revelation by God to humankind - the ideas would not have been arrived at by natural reason alone…by definition the metaphysical is beyond the 5 senses
if there is anything beyond what we can sense , we need another way to perceive it.
what about the “other side” ? Are there “metaphysical beings” who move between “worlds” ? Was there an initiative to reveal some stuff about the unseen realm? Maybe the attraction of religion is the hope of connecting to the “otherness”.
as I Corinthians 2 explains:
1And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. a 2For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. 4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.
6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9However, as it is written:
“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”
the things God has prepared for those who love him—
10these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.
14The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16for,
“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”
But we have the mind of Christ.
I Corinthians 2
~ ~ ~ ~
*rather than starting off with Internet definitions for things already touched upon - I’ve listed them after my comments.
~ ~ ~ ~
portraying religion as a vaccine to fight reason is to cast them as enemies rather than allies. I understand Christianity to be a religion where faith and reason are complementary. II Corinthians 5:7 says we walk by faith and not by sight. It does NOT say we walk by faith and not by reason. The combination of faith and reason is also implied in Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
Rocky brought up synchronicity - where we look for meaning. But meaning is intangible and relative and it’s possible to misinterpret a supposedly correlation of events…but I think meaning is something we seek. Why is it difficult to see the correlation? Is it because something inside us is broken?
I believe we were created as social beings. Something got really messed up in the fall of humankind in Genesis. We got separated from something essential - being connected with God and each other…why God didn’t fix things immediately is not known. Some scholars with expertise in the biblical languages and cultures understand the death associated with the first sin of humankind to be twofold in its impact - a figurative death of the spirit - separation from God, and long term there were physical consequences too.
In I Corinthians 2 Paul gets into God revealing Himself through the life of Jesus Christ. This is in contrast to worldly wisdom - a wisdom that doesn’t acknowledge God. I believe verses 4 & 5 speak of the unique time of the apostolic period - Paul and the other apostles had authentication by the power of God.
In my opinion wierwille was a phony teaching people how to fake speaking in tongues to insinuate himself as having the same apostolic status as Paul.
I don’t think this chapter promotes a magic decoder ring. That would be something external. Instead it revolves around the internal “faith” , “accept”. Paul is not making a personal attack on anyone in particular but rather is challenging the position of those who do not accept the revelation of God.
The contrast between natural and spirit is a common motif of Paul - and more so than believer or unbeliever here - - it often highlights the battle within ourselves like in Romans 8
The latter part of chapter 2 is how we reconnect in a relationship with him. I think my gullibility associated with PFAL and the Advanced Class is perhaps a failure on my part - falling for the pseudo-intellectualism of wierwille instead of seeking a personal relationship with Jesus Christ - wierwille’s con was “the Word takes the place of the absent Christ”.
Initially it is the Bible - the Word of God that revitalizes our spirit - and there’s also something self-authenticating about Scripture - remember the words of Jesus Christ in John 7:17 “Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.” I believe there’s something to this verse that might have to do with how our intuition and God may work together – in that metaphysical truth is self-authenticating through the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit – perhaps that is also implied in passages like John 16:13 and I John 2:27 .
So no magic decoder ring - more like an ongoing relationship
~ ~ ~ ~
*internet definitions for reference points
Social intelligence is the capacity to know oneself and to know others. Social intelligence is learned and develops from experience with people and learning from success and failures in social settings. Social intelligence is the ability to understand your own and others actions.
Gullibility is a failure of social intelligence in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action.
Discern: to recognize or identify as separate and distinct; discriminate. discern right from wrong; to come to know or recognize mentally. unable to discern his motives; to perceive by the sight or some other sense or by the intellect; see, recognize, or apprehend: They discerned a sail on the horizon.
to have understanding : have the power of comprehension. : to achieve a grasp of the nature, significance, or explanation of something; to believe or infer something to be the case.
ad hominem argument is one that is directed against the opposing person rather than the position they’re maintaining. It can be a clear direct attack against their character or more subtly cast doubt on their personal motives. An ad hominem argument is often used so that one can undermine their opposition’s case without having to directly confront and dispute it. Normally facts are ignored in favor of appealing to emotions and prejudices.
Superstition: a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief.
Synchronicity describes circumstances that appear meaningfully related yet lack a causal connection and refers to one's subjective experience that coincidences between events in one's mind and the outside world may be causally unrelated to each other yet have some other unknown connection…
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
IOW, synchronicity is subjective.
It is perhaps both intangible and tangible at the same time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Now we're at the point where there are more comments than I can possibly answer efficiently. So either I get long winded and address every point, thereby making myself look obsessed with this topic, or I just let some points go unaddressed, leaving the impression that I do not have a comeback.
Fortunately I have enough of a record here that I can honestly ask: Do you really think I could not write a book-length reply to these points complete with footnotes and hyperlinks? And I think you all know the answer is, yeah, he could probably do that.
But on a relaxed timetable. Hope you don't mind...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
No worries. I know there are a couple of verses in Proverbs that talk about the dilemma of whether or not to answer a fool after his folly.
So this fool is good either way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
A good note to keep in mind. Not only Christianity but other faiths as well, just labels though, I don't like labels, they tend to be narrow minded.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Right. Christianity is the only religion I’m somewhat familiar with. Narrow mindedness is probably relative - and I tend to be more inclusive compared to say a fundamentalist who is typically exclusive. Labels can be helpful - some specificity is needed otherwise we could be talking about anything, everything or nothing - then it’s meaningless.
I went with Raf’s opening post mention of I Corinthians 2:14 - and that’s why I quoted the whole chapter, as an example of a revealed religion versus the natural religion of reason that Paine promoted. Don’t think I was clear enough in my post to show that’s what I think Paul was arguing for - a revealed religion versus a natural religion - “the wisdom of this world “…but that’s just my take on it - I could be wrong.
I wasn’t meaning to be argumentative - just putting my goofball ideas in the mix to posit the thought that faith and religion doesn’t always mean that reason goes out the window - that’s just my opinion of course.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok, a lot to unpack here, but thank you for the follow-up post, T-Bone. It reduces the amount of time I need to spend replying (and this is still a long-@$$ post).
Obviously you guys think you're right and I won't change your mind. And I think I'm right and I won't change my mind. Best I can do is articulate my reply in light of your responses so that others reading can see that we're listening to each other and not just talking past each other.
With that in mind:
Chockfull: Yes, I did use rather strong terms. But consider the terms used by the Bible's writers to describe those who reject their message. We are "without excuse." We're "lawless." We're the "darkness" to your "light." We are "ignorant" and "hard-hearted." "Blinded."
We are numbered among the "cowardly, detestable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and liars."
Did I get to "evil" yet? [Checks notes. Nope.] "Evil."
We've been captured by the devil and doing his will.
Pollutants.
Defiled in mind and conscience.
Like a dog eating its own vomit.
So yeah, I use words like "magic decoder ring" to describe something that you need in order to decode (discern) a message. But (T-Bone says) a ring is external, whereas spirit is internal. Fine. Call it "taking the blue pill" to allow you to see the truth. We unbelievers take the red pill and enjoy living blissfully in the Matrix.
I use words like gullible.
Emotionally strong? I submit these terms I used are TAME by comparison to the terms used by the Bible to describe me.
Which is not to say that you've used those terms.
Back to T-Bone: I did not say religion IS a vaccine against reason. I thought I was clear. Religion HAS a vaccine against reason. So let's explore what I mean by that (without going into unnecessary detail).
Paul goes to great lengths to differentiate between the wisdom of the world and "God's wisdom." Why distinguish? In context, we see that it's because "God's wisdom" leads to a conclusion that the wisdom of the world finds "foolish." So what IS the wisdom of the world? It's wise. It's persuasive. It's human.
It's reason. It's "senses reasoning" as we would call it in TWI (hooray! they got something right!).
As T-Bone said, "just my take on it; I could be wrong."
Here's MY take on it: I could be wrong.
Paul knows that reasonable people listened to his pitch and rejected it as foolish. He knows other Christians are going to face the same opposition he did when they try to preach the word he was teaching them. So he needs something to counter the "philosophies of men" (aka reason) his people are bound to encounter. So I develop the imperfect analogy that reason is a disease, and it's in need of a vaccine. What's the vaccine? Verses that redirect the debate from the subject matter to the participants in the discussion. "You have the spirit of God. You get it. You took the blue pill. You have the decoder ring. Not those people. They don't understand our message because they can't. It's not because the message makes no sense. It makes perfect sense... to people with the ring, people who took the right pill, people with Spirit. People with humility. You ARE humble, aren't you? You have God's wisdom, right? Not like those people."
Yeah, that is the definition of ad hominem. When you say "those people lack the capacity to even understand what I'm talking about," you have changed the debate from being about ideas to being about people.
That verse, that tactic, is the vaccine. It doesn't address the conclusion reached by the natural man. It addresses the natural man himself and declares him incapable of properly assessing the evidence.
Religion can employ reason, and it often does. But there comes a point when reason ceases to agree with what a religion is peddling. Where it outright rejects it. "Maybe there were six denials instead of three." No. That makes no sense. They all said three. "Maybe there was more than one cursed fig tree." No, that's just excuse-making to account for the discrepancy in the accounts. "Maybe Judas didn't immediately go and kill himself." No, Paul just screwed up when he said Jesus was seen of the Twelve. Or maybe he counted Matthias. Or maybe it was so tangential to the point he was making that he just didn't care. The point is Matthew was pretty clear on the timing of Judas' death. "There were two fields of blood..." No, there was just one.
I chose examples we are most likely to agree on, but the ones that are relevant to this discussion are weightier. Like the ransom. To whom was the price paid? Why is a human sacrifice necessary in the first place? Why does redemption require a brutal death? And it gets deeper.
I'm not inviting a debate on those questions, primarily because we are not going to resolve them.
But Paul is terrified of that debate and needs to short-circuit it before we get there. That's why he redirects it. The rejection of his message couldn't possibly be due to a flaw in the message. It has to be a flaw in the person rejecting it.
"Of course he doesn't get it! What do you expect from a natural man?"
And that was the SHORT version of my reply.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
So, let me get this straight. "Empties floating by" is an insult, too?
Who could have imagined?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oh let's not get started with what <<<some>>> Christians say...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Raf, for the record I tentatively think I’m right only on a thing or two …and I’m not sure what they are.
You said:
Religion can employ reason, and it often does. But there comes a point when reason ceases to agree with what a religion is peddling. Where it outright rejects it. "Maybe there were six denials instead of three." No. That makes no sense. They all said three. "Maybe there was more than one cursed fig tree." No, that's just excuse-making to account for the discrepancy in the accounts.
End of quote
I wonder if the twisted bull-$hit PEDDLED by a pseudo-Christian cult-leader like wierwille has tainted your viewpoint.
I say that because your post mixes the natural sense of scripture with the nonsense of wierwille ideology.
I will not soften the brutal truth of the gospel message - nor will I argue for its REASON. I got into that on another thread - My post on A Loving Father?
So I’m not going to bore anyone to tears or Zs
again rehashing the why of the message, the need for sacrifice and redemption - and there’s probably some confirmation bias on my part because the gospel message makes sense to me - per the narrative of the Bible and regardless of the nonsense that wierwille peddled which in my opinion obfuscated the simple message of the Bible…”it makes sense” can be a problematic debate if there’s not a reference point or standard we can agree upon for what makes something intelligible, justified or have meaning…I know I’m probably muddying up this discussion - I think you Raf are better at articulating and citing nuances - so feel free to tell me what I’m trying to say 
- just kidding - the compliment is no joke - just expressing frustration with my lack of communication skills. 
And I don’t mean to come off as self-righteous or put myself above anyone- I’m just as flawed as anyone else - so count me in your assessment with the "lawless” the "darkness", the “ignorant" and "hard-hearted” , “Blinded” , the "cowardly, detestable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and liars - I am a great a$$-hole in my own right - and if there is a judgement throne that I must appear before - I plan on being a blubbering idiot on my knees throwing myself at the mercy of the judge - and who (besides the Lord) knows how that fiasco will turn out?
I never said or implied that anyone lacks the capacity to understand what I’m talking about. Maybe you and I have different ideas about how a higher power would reveal their personhood…it would seem to me that it’s contradictory or counterproductive for the Creator to require His creation have a nebulous thing called “spirit” to know about Him unless everyone already had it - otherwise it’s sort of like the what came first the chicken or the egg conundrum.
to elaborate on my comments of I Cor.2 in my earlier post - there is probably a deeper idea of Christian being enlightened further - as scripture like Ephesians 1: 17 & ff seem to suggest - but to flat out say the “natural man” can’t accept the gospel message goes against Romans 10 - faith comes by hearing the Word of God.
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Romans 1
~ ~ ~ ~
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Romans 2
It seems silly to think Paul was terrified of a debate over the means and method of redemption since he put all his cards on the table with the simple gospel message. He unapologetically puts the message out there - theologically…biblically there are no issues to resolve. As a revealed religion the basic tenets of Christianity come with the territory of the Bible. If this is another thinly disguised point / counterpoint religion versus atheism episode - well sorry I messed up once again.
Just a thought - respectfully, maybe you are inadvertently redirecting the discussion to find fault in the message - that it is somehow flawed. That’s entirely possible. But if it is a revealed religion that posits we are ALL flawed - then it comes down to me either accepting or rejecting that religion’s assessment of my status.
If the message is flawed because it’s not God-inspired or simply there is no God - then those are topics for another discussion. I believe - and I could be wrong - the wisdom of the world is foolish when it lacks the sense to correlate things like the wonders of the physical world or the amazing technology and industry of humankind as a reflection of the Creator.
~ ~ ~ ~
FYI in the Matrix red & blue pill analogy - the main character Neo is offered the CHOICE between a red pill and a blue pill by rebel leader Morpheus. The RED pill will enable Neo to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth...I think the red and blue pills was just a symbolic tool to show it all revolves around one’s CHOICE, a simple willful act of accepting or rejecting…same with the vaccine as a symbol of choice. That CHOICE stimulates immunity - are we talking confirmation bias ? Maybe so…also it’s possible a person’s ego, pride or some other unidentified factor may inoculate them against accepting the gospel message.
Edited by T-BoneClarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
The way I look at that verse is not an attack but a simple statement of how spiritual activity works, ie. spiritual things are spiritually discerned, assimilated, acted upon whereas reason is naturally or sensually (5-senses) discerned. Obviously we are 5-senses man but Paul explains that spiritual things are an additional realm that man can live in and those who don't will view the spiritual as a crock of foolishness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'll read both posts in more depth, but my initial reaction is, I have no reply that does not merely repeat what I've already said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I get the idea that if you take all the strong terms in the Bible that are negative and personalize them to the point that whether it is taking of Herod, Pharisees, Sadducee’s, the devil in temptations, various descriptions of spiritual entities if you lump together all of those audiences and take them to mean yourself I can see where you would feel categorically attacked. And as such use strong language in response.
The idea I would present back is some of the natural man verses spiritual man imagery could have to do with being familiar enough with the spiritual audiences in scripture that you do not take everything personally as a frontal attack or ad hominem attack but rather realize those described in negative words like that are specific to audience and circumstance of the story and not generally applicable to all of different or no faiths or religions.
Discrepancies in the harmony of the gospels are well known and I accept them and accept they may all be inaccurate in little details and may not be congruent. VPs work in JCOP was his attempt at this harmony in a way. I don’t accept fundamentalism in general so this is not a concern to me.
Paul was probably not terrified of any debate to be honest. With his background.
I kind of agree with your questions on the blood sacrifice and wonder why all that nonsense required the shedding of blood for payment. I guess it might have to do with the messiah fulfilling OT laws so it was a just trade for the new birth and those lives.
From my view even reason needs an anchor.
You can’t speak geometry without speaking of it taking point, line and plane on faith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't think he was concerned about debating. I think he was concerned about his followers. He probably felt he could hold his own. But he also knew where to stop, as evidenced by the fact that instead of telling his followers "here are the facts to refute their arguments," he had to tell them "it's a spirit thing. They can't understand."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Your interpretation of this scripture is laughable. No real independent thinking. Just pfal stupid. This was a man writing to people who knew what he was talking about. They didn't consider or guess about what Paul was thinking or feeling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Well argued.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.