In seriousness, you guys have a way of taking what I said and responding to something close to it, but not to my actual point. I'm trying to minimize the arguing because I know I have a tendency to get pedantic. But not one person has actually refuted the points I made. You just take what I said, distort it a little, and respond to that.
From religion HAS a vaccine to religion IS a vaccine, for example. Which I never said.
Now I appear to have said that you cannot employ both reason and religion. Not what I said, but lots of energy spent refuting that. Well, THIS is religious and reasonable. As if I ever said the two were mutually exclusive. I didn't. Lots of religion makes sense.
When and where religion stops making sense, religion invariably declares itself right and switches from trying to make sense to faulting the opposition for its incapability. That is the explicit message of I Corinthians 2:14. It's the whole point. But what about the rest of the chapter? The rest of the chapter just builds up to it. It doesn't refute my point. It contextualizes it.
But what about spiritual knowledge? There is no such thing. That's the argument. That is the subject of the debate. You can't just declare it to be true and then invent some way of accounting for the natural man's inability to understand it! But that is precisely what Paul did.
Religion creates a category of knowledge inaccessible to those who do not accept the religion in the first place.
That's the vaccine. It's not against all reason. It's only against the application of reason that rejects the religion.
In seriousness, you guys have a way of taking what I said and responding to something close to it, but not to my actual point. I'm trying to minimize the arguing because I know I have a tendency to get pedantic. But not one person has actually refuted the points I made. You just take what I said, distort it a little, and respond to that.
From religion HAS a vaccine to religion IS a vaccine, for example. Which I never said.
Now I appear to have said that you cannot employ both reason and religion. Not what I said, but lots of energy spent refuting that. Well, THIS is religious and reasonable. As if I ever said the two were mutually exclusive. I didn't. Lots of religion makes sense.
When and where religion stops making sense, religion invariably declares itself right and switches from trying to make sense to faulting the opposition for its incapability. That is the explicit message of I Corinthians 2:14. It's the whole point. But what about the rest of the chapter? The rest of the chapter just builds up to it. It doesn't refute my point. It contextualizes it.
But what about spiritual knowledge? There is no such thing. That's the argument. That is the subject of the debate. You can't just declare it to be true and then invent some way of accounting for the natural man's inability to understand it! But that is precisely what Paul did.
Religion creates a category of knowledge inaccessible to those who do not accept the religion in the first place.
That's the vaccine. It's not against all reason. It's only against the application of reason that rejects the religion.
My position I am coming from is functioning on a blend of intellect and intuition so to speak.
I personally would characterize intuition as “spiritual knowledge”. I feel like truths in that category are more subjective and individual. That’s just my view.
So on the topic of you can’t just declare it as true and invent a way other people can’t have it - I guess to break that down we have to look at the adjectives as “knowledge” is knowledge and logic applies.
You are saying because logic applies there is only one category “knowledge” and Paul is dancing around playing on that field.
My view is a “zoology” of knowledge that can be classified into buckets. I might consider other adjectives attached besides the two.
Like “musical knowledge” for example. I will never be EVH no matter how much I practice lol.
Again, I respect the way you and T-Bone have approached the subject matter. I could get pedantic and debate every line, but as I said earlier, we've made our points clear and let the reader decide.
Is this the after party of the thread? If so - I’ve got a few afterthoughts:
1. After mulling over this thread - I must admit or rather concede to Raf’s main point - religion has a vaccine for the reason virus.
~ ~ ~ ~
2. To push the analogies further - seeing reason as a virus suggests almost something like an independent agent that lives in the host (mind) . In the nature/ nurture motif there’s a somewhat blank slate in my mind - as a child there’s people and experiences - all from which I learn to think, understand, form judgments, etc. this helps me to explain or justify actions, events - seeing correlation of cause and effect in the real world.
~ ~ ~ ~
3. Religion has a vaccine - and it comes in various prescription strengths. On another thread my post on 2nd wave - differences comparing just two of the many brands of Christianity out there - I got into the differences of fundamentalism from evangelicalism. Fundamentalism can be distinguished from evangelicalism by three general ideas:
- Biblically, fundamentalism is totally hostile to the notion of biblical criticism in any form and is committed to a literal interpretation of Scripture…Evangelicalism however accepts the principle of sensible and trustworthy biblical criticism and recognizes the diversity of literary forms within Scripture…
- Theologically, fundamentalism is narrowly committed to a set of doctrines – some of which evangelicalism regards as peripheral or even utterly irrelevant such as dispensationalism…
- Sociologically, fundamentalism is a reactionary counter-cultural movement – whereas Evangelicalism is a cultural movement focused on relevance and has a loose basis for self-definition. The element of irrationalism often associated with fundamentalism is lacking in evangelicalism which has produced significant writings in areas of the philosophy of religion and apologetics.
My point in showing these differences is to show there’s a sliding scale - or vaccine prescription strength depending on the tenets, interpretive standards of a group or even the individual.
~ ~ ~ ~
4. I appreciate the input / viewpoints of all Grease Spotters - and especially the atheists! Why? If it wasn’t for Grease Spot I’d probably still be stuck in a fundamentalist mindset - or worse - having a mishmash of disjointed belief systemS (plural - cognitive dissonance of TWI-mindset, a budding interest in philosophy of religion and a strong pragmatic approach to life).
So on a sliding scale of a religious vaccine I don’t believe I’m at the extreme end like I was in TWI. I thank Grease Spot for helping me be more grounded in reality.
~ ~ ~ ~
5. I honestly don’t know what drives my “faith” - my passionate interest in philosophy of religion, my prayers and hopes…for all I know any of these feelings or sense that I have a relationship with Jesus Christ could be wishful thinking…why do I keep at it? I like to keep an open mind - I will pursue something I think is worthwhile until it’s proven pointless. Like law of believing in TWI and a lot of their other nonsense. I wasted 12 years taking a full-strength vaccine…I’m more discriminating now on a lot of things…UFOs? Ghosts? I am mildly curious- but on stuff like that I have not had any conclusive experiences - so anything I come across info wise I run through my vetting process - to take it off the table or leave there as tentative awaiting more info / proof.
In seriousness, you guys have a way of taking what I said and responding to something close to it, but not to my actual point. I'm trying to minimize the arguing because I know I have a tendency to get pedantic. But not one person has actually refuted the points I made. You just take what I said, distort it a little, and respond to that.
From religion HAS a vaccine to religion IS a vaccine, for example. Which I never said.
Now I appear to have said that you cannot employ both reason and religion. Not what I said, but lots of energy spent refuting that. Well, THIS is religious and reasonable. As if I ever said the two were mutually exclusive. I didn't. Lots of religion makes sense.
When and where religion stops making sense, religion invariably declares itself right and switches from trying to make sense to faulting the opposition for its incapability. That is the explicit message of I Corinthians 2:14. It's the whole point. But what about the rest of the chapter? The rest of the chapter just builds up to it. It doesn't refute my point. It contextualizes it.
But what about spiritual knowledge? There is no such thing. That's the argument. That is the subject of the debate. You can't just declare it to be true and then invent some way of accounting for the natural man's inability to understand it! But that is precisely what Paul did.
Religion creates a category of knowledge inaccessible to those who do not accept the religion in the first place.
That's the vaccine. It's not against all reason. It's only against the application of reason that rejects the religion.
I think I understand a little better what you're saying when I replace a couple of words. I will replace the word "religion" with belief, and I will replace the word "reason" with unbelief.
Belief creates a category of knowledge inaccessible to those who do not accept the belief in the first place. That's the vaccine. It's not against all unbelief. It's only against the application of unbelief that rejects the belief.
Did I get your points correct or missing something?
I'm missing your point then. Pls try to explain it in simpler terms because I want to try to understand your points without distorting them.
Raf point is there is no such thing as spiritual knowledge. There is only “knowledge” where all scientific laws apply. There are no “phenomenon” spiritually not explained by natural laws like gravity and the scientific method. This is consistent with an atheist view. They don’t believe in “sky daddy” - Raf isn’t using those terms to be polite.
I hope that is a decent summary without getting too pedantic.
I think Oldiesman is lost at my analogy, not at my worldview.
So let me try to articulate my analogy in the simplest possible terms.
In the analogy, a healthy body is one in which Paul's doctrine is embraced. The virus is reason. If reason gets into the healthy body, it would cause a rejection of Paul's doctrine. So we fight off the virus with a vaccine. I Corinthians 2:14 is the vaccine. It blocks reason from entering the healthy body and thus preserves Paul's doctrine.
No analogy is perfect, of course. The notion that religion does not employ reason at all is demonstrably false. But in Christianity you reach a point, according to Christianity, at which reason has its limits and faith carries you on to the next leg of the journey. And if, heaven forbid, someone should come along and say "that next leg of the journey makes no sense, you don't have to argue with that person because you have a ready-made verse explaining to you why that person is wrong. It's not because the next leg of the journey DOES make sense and here's why. No, that would be reasonable. Instead, the person is wrong because he's wrong. He doesn't understand. He's a fool. A natural man. Didn't take the blue pill. Doesn't have the decoder ring.
...
"There is only knowledge where all scientific laws apply."
Not true. There are plenty of areas in which scientific laws do not apply. At least, not as far as I know. They don't involve supernatural explanations, but science doesn't explain them either.
Why are jokes funny?
Why is Anna Kendrick more attractive than the Olsen twins?
Why is the Godfather a better movie than Ernest Goes to Camp?
What is awe?
I don't know that science has an answer to any of those questions. But we know things are funny. We know people are attractive, some more than others. We know that looking at an impressive work of art can inspire awe to rival a sunset at the Grand Canyon.
None of those things qualifies as scientific knowledge. And none of those things demands the existence of a God or gods.
...
I don't use "sky daddy" because I don't find it useful. Same reason you almost never hear me invoke the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot. I think referring to spirit as a magic decoder ring is disrespectful enough to convey my thoughts without my having to just be rude for rudeness's sake.
Thanks for the additional dialogue it helps me understand where you are coming from and helps me form a more complete picture of your views which hopefully I’m not assuming too much in.
We may be closer in views than I first thought.
Areas unexplainable by scientific laws. If those are present there is room for a lot of varying philosophy.
Here's my take, though I'm surely not insisting I'm correct.
Flying Spaghetti Monster is disrespectful to God and, thus, people who have Him at the core of their belief system, as well. Ditto for Sky Daddy.
Secret Decoder ring is different, in that it doesn't attack God or people, it attacks a concept. That concept is expressed inI Corinthians 2:14 . Reason is the vaccine that attacks the concept.
Not true. There are plenty of areas in which scientific laws do not apply. At least, not as far as I know. They don't involve supernatural explanations, but science doesn't explain them either.
Why are jokes funny?
Why is Anna Kendrick more attractive than the Olsen twins?
Why is the Godfather a better movie than Ernest Goes to Camp?
What is awe?
I don't know that science has an answer to any of those questions. But we know things are funny. We know people are attractive, some more than others. We know that looking at an impressive work of art can inspire awe to rival a sunset at the Grand Canyon.
None of those things qualifies as scientific knowledge. And none of those things demands the existence of a God or gods.
The numinous.
Neither religion nor reason is required to experience the numinous.
————
Raf, I understand your point. And I agree.
Expanding of the medical metaphor, beleeef is the everyday salve for the discomfort of being alive. Instead of finding out, understanding, knowing or not knowing, examining ourselves honestly, looking, seeing what is actually going on, all we have to do is clutch and cling to beleeef, and voila! the discomfort is remedied.
Here's my take, though I'm surely not insisting I'm correct.
Flying Spaghetti Monster is disrespectful to God and, thus, people who have Him at the core of their belief system, as well. Ditto for Sky Daddy.
Secret Decoder ring is different, in that it doesn't attack God or people, it attacks a concept. That concept is expressed inI Corinthians 2:14 . Reason is the vaccine that attacks the concept.
Did the secret decoder ring materialize all by itself or was it created by sky daddy?
Did the secret decoder ring materialize all by itself or was it created by sky daddy?
Runs off and hides lol
I think, maybe, we invented the secret decoder ring, ourselves, by perhaps trying to read something into the scriptures that the original authors never intended to convey.
I think, maybe, we invented the secret decoder ring, ourselves, by perhaps trying to read something into the scriptures that the original authors never intended to convey.
I think, maybe, we invented the secret decoder ring, ourselves, by perhaps trying to read something into the scriptures that the original authors never intended to convey.
you mean my way corps ring doesnt decode correctly?
I think, maybe, we invented the secret decoder ring, ourselves, by perhaps trying to read something into the scriptures that the original authors never intended to convey.
I think you might be right.
Can we really know with certainty the original intent? Sometimes, maybe. Always, probably not.
I think, maybe, we invented the secret decoder ring, ourselves, by perhaps trying to read something into the scriptures that the original authors never intended to convey.
Damn. And I thought my green Way Corps ring was like a Green lantern energizer ring bringing the green power into the present realm by mastering the encoder commands and speaking them into the air in tongues.
In the analogy, a healthy body is one in which Paul's doctrine is embraced. The virus is reason. If reason gets into the healthy body, it would cause a rejection of Paul's doctrine. So we fight off the virus with a vaccine. I Corinthians 2:14 is the vaccine. It blocks reason from entering the healthy body and thus preserves Paul's doctrine.
No analogy is perfect, of course. The notion that religion does not employ reason at all is demonstrably false. But in Christianity you reach a point, according to Christianity, at which reason has its limits and faith carries you on to the next leg of the journey. And if, heaven forbid, someone should come along and say "that next leg of the journey makes no sense, you don't have to argue with that person because you have a ready-made verse explaining to you why that person is wrong. It's not because the next leg of the journey DOES make sense and here's why. No, that would be reasonable. Instead, the person is wrong because he's wrong. He doesn't understand. He's a fool. A natural man. Didn't take the blue pill. Doesn't have the decoder ring.
Ok Raf, putting it that way, it's a point well taken and you're right. Instead of namecalling, WE DO need to explain why the next leg makes sense. (I Peter 3:15) among others.
I think, maybe, we invented the secret decoder ring, ourselves, by perhaps trying to read something into the scriptures that the original authors never intended to convey.
I think it is most likely that this is incorrect. HOWEVER, it's not outside the realm of possibility.
The simplest explanation is that this verse says exactly what it means and there's nothing confusing about it.
Less simple, but still plausible, is that it's referring to the willingness of unbelievers to see Paul's point rather than the ability. In that case it's just either careless writing or something that gets lost in translation.
Whatever way you look at it, "magic decoder ring" or no, it is absolutely a clear case of shifting the focus of the discussion from the subject matter to the people engaged in the discussion.
I think it is most likely that this is incorrect. HOWEVER, it's not outside the realm of possibility.
The simplest explanation is that this verse says exactly what it means and there's nothing confusing about it.
Less simple, but still plausible, is that it's referring to the willingness of unbelievers to see Paul's point rather than the ability. In that case it's just either careless writing or something that gets lost in translation.
Whatever way you look at it, "magic decoder ring" or no, it is absolutely a clear case of shifting the focus of the discussion from the subject matter to the people engaged in the discussion.
So honestly I read this and was going to make a wise crack about Gods willingness equaling Gods ability.
But after resting it for a day I’m thinking that stray Plaffy logic really detracts from a conversation so I’ll refrain from that.
The lack of ability to understand I can totally see how it comes off as an ad hominem attack.
The lack of willingness maybe due to different focus or pre conceptions seems more to me how I would read that currently.
I view a parallel as IQ versus EQ.
We measured intelligence solely by logic capacity for hundreds of years. Now we measure another component by a different measure to do with emotions. Ewww. Totally weird. And now those of us who might be slightly spectrumy like myself are in last place although having some smarts in logic. That sure sucks lol.
Thats how I view different “kinds” of knowledge currently.
I realize my views are somewhat progressive but that is me and my brain so it is what it is.
The lack of ability to understand I can totally see how it comes off as an ad hominem attack.
It should be noted that an ad hominem approach (let's refrain from my earlier use of "attack") does not necessarily imply an insult. Ad hominem simply means you're arguing the person instead of the topic. Things like, "Of course he feels that way; he's a Democrat." That's ad hominem. It does not address whether the person is correct in his thinking or incorrect, whether his position has validity or not. It dismisses his argument based on who he is, not on what he argues.
Whether Paul meant to say that the natural man is unable to understand the things of the spirit or unwilling to understand the things of the spirit makes no difference in terms of ad hominem. It's ad hominem either way. Whether one is more insulting than the other, I really don't know. My reason for bringing up ability v. willingness had nothing to do with ad hominem. Rather, it had everything to do with the appropriateness/inappropriateness of the "magic decoder ring" analogy. That analogy would not apply is the issue is unwillingness.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
19
12
19
13
Popular Days
Nov 30
17
Mar 18
12
Mar 17
10
Mar 12
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 19 posts
Rocky 12 posts
cman 19 posts
chockfull 13 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
I see plenty of logic and reason on this thread from people with various viewpoints.
If it is a vaccine then it’s kind of suckish.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I see plenty of effort to respond to my point in a reasonable, intelligent manner.
I also see cman's posts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
In seriousness, you guys have a way of taking what I said and responding to something close to it, but not to my actual point. I'm trying to minimize the arguing because I know I have a tendency to get pedantic. But not one person has actually refuted the points I made. You just take what I said, distort it a little, and respond to that.
From religion HAS a vaccine to religion IS a vaccine, for example. Which I never said.
Now I appear to have said that you cannot employ both reason and religion. Not what I said, but lots of energy spent refuting that. Well, THIS is religious and reasonable. As if I ever said the two were mutually exclusive. I didn't. Lots of religion makes sense.
When and where religion stops making sense, religion invariably declares itself right and switches from trying to make sense to faulting the opposition for its incapability. That is the explicit message of I Corinthians 2:14. It's the whole point. But what about the rest of the chapter? The rest of the chapter just builds up to it. It doesn't refute my point. It contextualizes it.
But what about spiritual knowledge? There is no such thing. That's the argument. That is the subject of the debate. You can't just declare it to be true and then invent some way of accounting for the natural man's inability to understand it! But that is precisely what Paul did.
Religion creates a category of knowledge inaccessible to those who do not accept the religion in the first place.
That's the vaccine. It's not against all reason. It's only against the application of reason that rejects the religion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
My position I am coming from is functioning on a blend of intellect and intuition so to speak.
I personally would characterize intuition as “spiritual knowledge”. I feel like truths in that category are more subjective and individual. That’s just my view.
So on the topic of you can’t just declare it as true and invent a way other people can’t have it - I guess to break that down we have to look at the adjectives as “knowledge” is knowledge and logic applies.
You are saying because logic applies there is only one category “knowledge” and Paul is dancing around playing on that field.
My view is a “zoology” of knowledge that can be classified into buckets. I might consider other adjectives attached besides the two.
Like “musical knowledge” for example. I will never be EVH no matter how much I practice lol.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Again, I respect the way you and T-Bone have approached the subject matter. I could get pedantic and debate every line, but as I said earlier, we've made our points clear and let the reader decide.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Raf, thanks for starting threads like this.
Is this the after party of the thread? If so - I’ve got a few afterthoughts:
1. After mulling over this thread - I must admit or rather concede to Raf’s main point - religion has a vaccine for the reason virus.
~ ~ ~ ~
2. To push the analogies further - seeing reason as a virus suggests almost something like an independent agent that lives in the host (mind) . In the nature/ nurture motif there’s a somewhat blank slate in my mind - as a child there’s people and experiences - all from which I learn to think, understand, form judgments, etc. this helps me to explain or justify actions, events - seeing correlation of cause and effect in the real world.
~ ~ ~ ~
3. Religion has a vaccine - and it comes in various prescription strengths. On another thread my post on 2nd wave - differences comparing just two of the many brands of Christianity out there - I got into the differences of fundamentalism from evangelicalism. Fundamentalism can be distinguished from evangelicalism by three general ideas:
- Biblically, fundamentalism is totally hostile to the notion of biblical criticism in any form and is committed to a literal interpretation of Scripture…Evangelicalism however accepts the principle of sensible and trustworthy biblical criticism and recognizes the diversity of literary forms within Scripture…
- Theologically, fundamentalism is narrowly committed to a set of doctrines – some of which evangelicalism regards as peripheral or even utterly irrelevant such as dispensationalism…
- Sociologically, fundamentalism is a reactionary counter-cultural movement – whereas Evangelicalism is a cultural movement focused on relevance and has a loose basis for self-definition. The element of irrationalism often associated with fundamentalism is lacking in evangelicalism which has produced significant writings in areas of the philosophy of religion and apologetics.
My point in showing these differences is to show there’s a sliding scale - or vaccine prescription strength depending on the tenets, interpretive standards of a group or even the individual.
~ ~ ~ ~
4. I appreciate the input / viewpoints of all Grease Spotters - and especially the atheists! Why? If it wasn’t for Grease Spot I’d probably still be stuck in a fundamentalist mindset - or worse - having a mishmash of disjointed belief systemS (plural - cognitive dissonance of TWI-mindset, a budding interest in philosophy of religion and a strong pragmatic approach to life).
So on a sliding scale of a religious vaccine I don’t believe I’m at the extreme end like I was in TWI. I thank Grease Spot for helping me be more grounded in reality.
~ ~ ~ ~
5. I honestly don’t know what drives my “faith” - my passionate interest in philosophy of religion, my prayers and hopes…for all I know any of these feelings or sense that I have a relationship with Jesus Christ could be wishful thinking…why do I keep at it? I like to keep an open mind - I will pursue something I think is worthwhile until it’s proven pointless. Like law of believing in TWI and a lot of their other nonsense. I wasted 12 years taking a full-strength vaccine…I’m more discriminating now on a lot of things…UFOs? Ghosts? I am mildly curious- but on stuff like that I have not had any conclusive experiences - so anything I come across info wise I run through my vetting process - to take it off the table or leave there as tentative awaiting more info / proof.
Edited by T-BoneClarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I think I understand a little better what you're saying when I replace a couple of words. I will replace the word "religion" with belief, and I will replace the word "reason" with unbelief.
Belief creates a category of knowledge inaccessible to those who do not accept the belief in the first place. That's the vaccine. It's not against all unbelief. It's only against the application of unbelief that rejects the belief.
Did I get your points correct or missing something?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No, the substitution changes the conversation completely. I don't even know where to start.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I'm missing your point then. Pls try to explain it in simpler terms because I want to try to understand your points without distorting them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Raf point is there is no such thing as spiritual knowledge. There is only “knowledge” where all scientific laws apply. There are no “phenomenon” spiritually not explained by natural laws like gravity and the scientific method. This is consistent with an atheist view. They don’t believe in “sky daddy” - Raf isn’t using those terms to be polite.
I hope that is a decent summary without getting too pedantic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If I may,
I think Oldiesman is lost at my analogy, not at my worldview.
So let me try to articulate my analogy in the simplest possible terms.
In the analogy, a healthy body is one in which Paul's doctrine is embraced. The virus is reason. If reason gets into the healthy body, it would cause a rejection of Paul's doctrine. So we fight off the virus with a vaccine. I Corinthians 2:14 is the vaccine. It blocks reason from entering the healthy body and thus preserves Paul's doctrine.
No analogy is perfect, of course. The notion that religion does not employ reason at all is demonstrably false. But in Christianity you reach a point, according to Christianity, at which reason has its limits and faith carries you on to the next leg of the journey. And if, heaven forbid, someone should come along and say "that next leg of the journey makes no sense, you don't have to argue with that person because you have a ready-made verse explaining to you why that person is wrong. It's not because the next leg of the journey DOES make sense and here's why. No, that would be reasonable. Instead, the person is wrong because he's wrong. He doesn't understand. He's a fool. A natural man. Didn't take the blue pill. Doesn't have the decoder ring.
...
"There is only knowledge where all scientific laws apply."
Not true. There are plenty of areas in which scientific laws do not apply. At least, not as far as I know. They don't involve supernatural explanations, but science doesn't explain them either.
Why are jokes funny?
Why is Anna Kendrick more attractive than the Olsen twins?
Why is the Godfather a better movie than Ernest Goes to Camp?
What is awe?
I don't know that science has an answer to any of those questions. But we know things are funny. We know people are attractive, some more than others. We know that looking at an impressive work of art can inspire awe to rival a sunset at the Grand Canyon.
None of those things qualifies as scientific knowledge. And none of those things demands the existence of a God or gods.
...
I don't use "sky daddy" because I don't find it useful. Same reason you almost never hear me invoke the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot. I think referring to spirit as a magic decoder ring is disrespectful enough to convey my thoughts without my having to just be rude for rudeness's sake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Thanks for the additional dialogue it helps me understand where you are coming from and helps me form a more complete picture of your views which hopefully I’m not assuming too much in.
We may be closer in views than I first thought.
Areas unexplainable by scientific laws. If those are present there is room for a lot of varying philosophy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Here's my take, though I'm surely not insisting I'm correct.
Flying Spaghetti Monster is disrespectful to God and, thus, people who have Him at the core of their belief system, as well. Ditto for Sky Daddy.
Secret Decoder ring is different, in that it doesn't attack God or people, it attacks a concept. That concept is expressed in I Corinthians 2:14 . Reason is the vaccine that attacks the concept.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The numinous.
Neither religion nor reason is required to experience the numinous.
————
Raf, I understand your point. And I agree.
Expanding of the medical metaphor, beleeef is the everyday salve for the discomfort of being alive. Instead of finding out, understanding, knowing or not knowing, examining ourselves honestly, looking, seeing what is actually going on, all we have to do is clutch and cling to beleeef, and voila! the discomfort is remedied.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Did the secret decoder ring materialize all by itself or was it created by sky daddy?
Runs off and hides lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I think, maybe, we invented the secret decoder ring, ourselves, by perhaps trying to read something into the scriptures that the original authors never intended to convey.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I agree!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
you mean my way corps ring doesnt decode correctly?
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I think you might be right.
Can we really know with certainty the original intent? Sometimes, maybe. Always, probably not.
What if we can never know. Will we be ok?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Damn. And I thought my green Way Corps ring was like a Green lantern energizer ring bringing the green power into the present realm by mastering the encoder commands and speaking them into the air in tongues.
/s
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Ok Raf, putting it that way, it's a point well taken and you're right. Instead of namecalling, WE DO need to explain why the next leg makes sense. (I Peter 3:15) among others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think it is most likely that this is incorrect. HOWEVER, it's not outside the realm of possibility.
The simplest explanation is that this verse says exactly what it means and there's nothing confusing about it.
Less simple, but still plausible, is that it's referring to the willingness of unbelievers to see Paul's point rather than the ability. In that case it's just either careless writing or something that gets lost in translation.
Whatever way you look at it, "magic decoder ring" or no, it is absolutely a clear case of shifting the focus of the discussion from the subject matter to the people engaged in the discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So honestly I read this and was going to make a wise crack about Gods willingness equaling Gods ability.
But after resting it for a day I’m thinking that stray Plaffy logic really detracts from a conversation so I’ll refrain from that.
The lack of ability to understand I can totally see how it comes off as an ad hominem attack.
The lack of willingness maybe due to different focus or pre conceptions seems more to me how I would read that currently.
I view a parallel as IQ versus EQ.
We measured intelligence solely by logic capacity for hundreds of years. Now we measure another component by a different measure to do with emotions. Ewww. Totally weird. And now those of us who might be slightly spectrumy like myself are in last place although having some smarts in logic. That sure sucks lol.
Thats how I view different “kinds” of knowledge currently.
I realize my views are somewhat progressive but that is me and my brain so it is what it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It should be noted that an ad hominem approach (let's refrain from my earlier use of "attack") does not necessarily imply an insult. Ad hominem simply means you're arguing the person instead of the topic. Things like, "Of course he feels that way; he's a Democrat." That's ad hominem. It does not address whether the person is correct in his thinking or incorrect, whether his position has validity or not. It dismisses his argument based on who he is, not on what he argues.
Whether Paul meant to say that the natural man is unable to understand the things of the spirit or unwilling to understand the things of the spirit makes no difference in terms of ad hominem. It's ad hominem either way. Whether one is more insulting than the other, I really don't know. My reason for bringing up ability v. willingness had nothing to do with ad hominem. Rather, it had everything to do with the appropriateness/inappropriateness of the "magic decoder ring" analogy. That analogy would not apply is the issue is unwillingness.
For whatever that's worth.
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.