Leaderboard

Oh let's not get started with what <<<some>>> Christians say...

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.

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.