bacht

Why should our thoughts be so important? The cosmos seems to have survived quite nicely for billions of years before humans arrived.

We all start as infants believing that we're the centre of the universe. As we mature we should realize that we're not, shouldn't we? Why should we rationalize vanity, narcissism or egocentrism as being anything more than infantilism?

No Robots

The materialist assumes that thought is an emergent property of matter, whereas the idealist holds that thought is a universal property of nature, that everything thinks, each in its own way.

In the absolute sense, it is not our thought per se that is important, but rather our thought as one facet of the One Great Thought. All things are facets of this One Great Thought, just as from the materialist perspective they are part of the one space-time continuum.

Of course, in the relative sense, our thought is important to ourselves, to our communities and to our species.

bacht

And the early Christians were thinking like this?

No Robots

The opposition between idealism and absolute materialism is the principal theme of the Bible. It isn't laid out there philosophically, but is presented mystically as the principle of absolute spiritual (ideal) unity.

bacht

I see. And only those "with eyes to see" will perceive this, the rest of us are stuck with wading through plain language aimed at the ignoranti?

No Robots

In principle, yes. In practice, however, there are measures that people can take to improve their understanding. Does anybody not realize that the parable of the sower is about spiritual enlightenment? Now, there are some who grasp the import of this immediately, people who are spiritually receptive. There are others who simply do not see anything meaningful here at all. And there are others who are willing to investigate the matter. Perhaps we cannot really choose what category we fit in. However, we cannot dismiss the possibility someone can change from one category to another.

Amaleq13

Yes and I repeated what Don said regarding why that fails to support your claim.

Yes and I've already explained why this is flawed reasoning. Several times.

Do you not understand what "prima facie" means?

Do you not understand what "unapologetically" and "without disclaimer or explanation" means?

Otherwise, you've already been given the basis for my conclusion that Paul truly believes in the supernatural powers he describes as gifts from God.

It would help if you actually read my posts. Your responses suggest you either have not read them or do not understand them.

What subjects!!??!!! I'm tired of repeating myself. Review my last few posts to learn what should already know.

I've already explained why this is not yet relevant. You have to establish that it is specifically pertinent to the passage upon which I have focused the majority of my posts.

Sure looks that way to me.

I'm only dodging red herrings and attempted burden shifts. And getting tired of pretending there is a chance in hell you'll ever produce any evidence or scholarly support for your assertion.

Again, you have absolutely no clue as to my background knowledge so please refrain from making such claims from ignorance.

Another straw man. My conclusion is based on the text. It is supported by every scholar I've ever read who happened to discuss the passage.

That is utter nonsense. The existence of scholarly support for your position is in no way dependent upon anything about my conclusions or objections. You should have found it before making your assertion! :banghead:

And the only reason you could still not know how I have obtained my conclusion or the basis of my objection is if you haven't read my posts. It is all right there for everyone to read. Rather explicitly described, actually.

Elijah

It's like talking to a wall. Wake me when you're actually prepared to have this conversation and defend your position. :wave:

GakuseiDon

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, I'm afraid. What "spiritual but natural phenomenon" is Tertullian describing, IYO?

Elijah

Spiritual from an philosophical idealist's POV.