Christians, and Teaching About Reality

[Stephen3141]

The "electronic screen" generations of Americans tend to see "reality" as something
which they project from their own experience, or their own interpretation of what they
think is TRUE (whatever THAT means to them).

A lot of millenial pastors and Christian teachers, tend to agree with this undefined
concept of reality. (This is a position, that is not compatible with historic Christianity.)

In this thread, I will try to present basic concepts about what I call "our shared reality",
and why this is crucial to the Christian faith, and the American concept of "law and order".
---------- ----------

[I use a copyrighted versions of what I have written, with references, so that anyone
could look up what I have written, without distortion.... I hope that this does not
offend anyone here. These are my thoughts on the topic.]

Sources:

[Christian Logic]. Christian Logic, Stephen Wuest, Christian Faith Publishing, 2024.
[Making Bible Study Formal]. Making Bible Study Formal: Re-Introducing the Intellectual
Disciplines into Bible Study, Stephen Wuest, Dorrance Publishing Company, 2020.

On the topic of reality, and logic...

"The question of whether or not something exists, is the same question of whether or not it is real.
Something may be real, although we may never have experienced it. There are things that are part
of our shared reality, so they must exist." [Christian Logic, 59]


"Key Point:
Many of the debates that we observe in modern America involve dysfunctional statements or definitions. We need to learn to recognize these.
Aspects of our shared reality are explored in “OUR SHARED REALITY AND LOGIC".

William Dembski, one of the core intelligent design writers, reminds us of what G. K Chesterton pointed out about reason:

“Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, ‘Why should anything go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape [in the belief system of naturalistic epistemology]?’ “ [G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, in Collected Works of G. K. Chesterton (San Francisco, Ignatius, 1986), I:236] [The End of Christianity, 104]

When we think about logic, we must also think about what our shared reality is." [Christian Logic, 62-63]


"*** OUR SHARED REALITY AND LOGIC

Our “shared reality” is the reality that we all (potentially) have access to.
This topic involves the philosophical concepts of what our senses can detect, what
evidence is, and how we can describe reality. “Some of the types of reality that we share are:

• physical reality (including time)
• moral/ethical reality
• the reality of valid methods of reasoning
• free will, so that we can choose how we use our mind. “ [Making Bible
Study Formal, p. 57]

But there are other types of shared reality, such as:
• abstract concepts
• God
• reasoning about types (including abstract realities) of our shared reality." [Christian Logic, 73-74]
---------- ----------

For Christians, our belief in a shared reality, is a core idea that is foundational.

As I argue elsewhere, the "conscience" or "moral consciousness" that the Apostle
Paul mentions, is part of our shared reality. EVERYONE originally had access to
their conscience, although some have so obliterated its voice, that they no longer
can hear it. (This is similar to people who do not pay attention to what is going on
around them, and so are ignorant of aspects of reality.)

As I argue elsewhere, the basic moral-ethical code of Judaism and Christianity
are firmly founded on this shared reality. For, the core command

"You shall not bear false witness"
("You shall not lie")

cannot exist, UNLESS God recognizes that we all live in a shared reality,
AND that our human perception is good enough to show us the details of
this shared reality.

That is, the Judea-Christian moral-ethical (ME) system CANNOT EXIST, unless
we all live in a shared reality. Nor can the American fair rule of law, and due
process under the law. So, if we run around demonstrating for "justice", we
MUST FIRST RECOGNIZE THAT WE LIVE IN A SHARED REALITY.
---------- ----------

Although this is a very BASIC point, it is central to Christianity.
And THIS is why orthodox pastors and teachers MUST teach the philosophical
basics about what reality is.

I would be interested in the thoughts of other Christians, especially the thoughts
of Christians from the electronic screen generations.

 

[timothyu]

Reality according to God

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

 

[Stephen3141]

Reality according to God

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

In this thread, I am not talking about A TRUTH
(such as, God knows what we are thinking and wishing for)
or A TRUTH
(such as we need to be renewed in the spirit of our minds)
or A TRUTH
(such as friendship with the "world" is enmity with God).

I am discussing the nature of reality, and how we perceive it, and how that
perception is related to how the Bible presents reality, and how we may perceive it.
---------- ----------

Those who have never discussed what it is, that is our shared reality,
probably will have to struggle to understand what I am talking about.

Just quoting Scripture verses with truths in them, is not what I am
discussing in this thread.

 

[Stephen3141]

To continue with more material on "our shared reality"...
---------- ----------

"EVIDENCE AND BELIEF

Studying the Bible, begins to make us conscious of the assertions that the Bible makes about what our shared reality is. The Bible presents propositions.

The obvious question about these biblical propositions is whether or not we believe them.

The un-obvious question is:
What constitutes evidence for/against believing the biblical propositions?

Saying “you’ve just got to believe what the Bible says” bypasses everything that the Bible says about the mind/heart (and its central place in our life, and in the identity of human beings)." [Making Bible Study Formal, 157]


"Examples of Evidence From the Bible’s Point of View

The Bible’s approach to what constitutes evidence, has a different flavor than the discussions in secular philosophy. It’s good to notice this right up front. The Bible does not agree with the current American culture (that deifies personal judgment). The Bible does not present the PC approach “Evidence is whatever I think it should be,” or “it’s relevant evidence if I declare that it is.”

The Bible presents our lives as a shared, unified reality. And when God presents us evidence in this shared reality, he holds us morally/ethically responsible to react properly to it. The Bible does not go through the agonizing debates of the secular philosophers (who debate whether or not some types of evidence are accessible to all of us, or whether some types of evidence will persuade each of us enough to believe some proposition).

The God who is presented in the Bible knows what sort of evidence each of us can experience, and presents us with enough evidence so we could be persuaded of the truths that the Bible presents. The Bible presents God as designing human beings, so that we can perceive and understand the evidence that he presents to us. This is a completely different approach, than our secular American society takes." [Making Bible Study Formal, 157-158]

 

[Stephen3141]

To continue with more material on "our shared reality"...
---------- ----------

Christians need to be ASKING MANY MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT
EVIDENCE IS, given that we are commanded to "not bear false witness"
(or lie) about this shared reality. Continual lying about our shared reality,
as the Scriptures warn, will keep us out of the kingdom of heaven. (This
is the VERY GRITTY CONNECTION between our shared reality, and
Christian doctrine, and our eternal future.)

"Topics Related to Evidence and Belief

Part of formal reasoning is carefully considering what it is that we are reasoning about, and how it is that we are reasoning. These are topics that involve evidence and belief.

There are some general topics about “evidence” that a thinking person needs to deal with. Then there are more specific questions about evidence that those who study the Bible need to deal with.

Some of these topics are:

— what is evidence?
— evidence has worth with regard to a specific proposition
— the Brain-in-a-Vat (BIV) problem (can we be fooled by fake evidence?)
— direct and indirect evidence
— is any belief evidence, or just justified beliefs?
— are there different levels of evidence, and how would your describe them?
— evidence encoded in history
— the availability of shared moral/ethical values
— the conscience: God revealing certain moral/ethical truths directly to us
— nature: God revealing certain truths directly to us
— the mind: God giving us a unity of experience, regarding the intellectual life
— morality/ethics and a fair rule of law
— morality/ethics and human rights
— the partial accessibility of our shared reality
— dealing with a unified reality
— being individually responsible for how we deal with the unified reality
— God as part of the unified reality
— does God give all people enough evidence, to believe the propositions in the Bible?
— do different worldly cultures perceive levels of evidence, with regard to some topics, differently?

We need to explicitly think about what evidence is, how we perceive it, different “levels” of evidence, and sound methods of evaluating evidence.

The philosophical discipline of Epistemology considers what good evidence is, that leads to believing/justifying that some proposition is true. This is a secular concept of how to justify (“show or prove to be right or reasonable” in the Dumbo right-click Mac dictionary) believing something. Christians need to consider these secular philosophical discussion topics, because many of them are excellent and relevant. (Some are not, in my opinion.)

The Bible asserts certain propositions about what is evidence, and how we are morally/ethically responsible for handling evidence. This is quite a different approach, than the approach in secular Epistemology (where we are left on our own to try to figure out what constitutes evidence, and when a threshold of evidence justifies us in believing some proposition)." [Making Bible Study Formal, 164-165]

 

[Stephen3141]

Topics that I need also to introduce include...

-- What are the different types of evidence?
-- Questions raised by the philosophical thought experiment of a
"Brain in a Vat".
-- How evidence is encoded in history, and what the Bible expects us to do
with that type of evidence.

(As I present these topics, it should become pretty clear that spinning
explanations (conspiracy theories) about our shared reality, is VERY DIFFERENT
than dealing with evidence as the Bible expects us to deal with it.)

 

[timothyu]

and how that
perception is related to how the Bible presents reality,

I presented how the Bible presents reality.

 

[Stephen3141]

About different types of evidence...
---------- ----------

"What is Evidence?

This is a really difficult question.

Note that “evidence” can be high quality or low quality or anything in between. There is analysis required, to try to find the quality of a piece of evidence.

Note that “evidence” can support a specific proposition, or contradict a specific proposition, or not be relevant to a specific proposition. The degree of relevance of “evidence” with regard to a proposition, affects what the “evidence” is “worth.”

A beginning start by the secular philosophers is:

“It is a matter of common observation that lightning is evidence of impending thunder. To call lightning ‘evidence’ here seems to mean that lightning is a reliable indicator of thunder, where a reliable indicator is a sign that invariably, or regularly, gets things right. What is meant by ‘gets things right’ is, roughly, ‘tells the truth.’ Thus, this sense of ‘evidence’ can also be captured by the phrase ‘reliable mark of the truth.’ “ [Goldman, 32]" [Making Bible Study Formal, 167-168]


Note that there are levels of quality, of evidence. Note that specific evidence is relevant
to certain questions, but not relevant to OTHER questions. Note that even secular philosophers
hold that evidence must correlate as a reliable marker of truth. (I take this to mean that
evidence must match our shared reality.)

Source:

[Goldman]. Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction, Goldman et alia,
Oxford University press, 2015.

 

[Simonides]

Reality is, we are being lied to. Here's some evidence.

Do we have a real photo of the entire Planet Earth? Is NASA concerned of its shape?

This is not a topic I'm particularly interested in, yet it is still very strange, and telling. I think everything is tied in together. There could be some common denominator connecting all the bizarre events, and objects mentioned on this website with our space exploration controversy. At some...

www.stolenhistory.org

 

[Stephen3141]

About types of evidence...
---------- ----------

Christians need to be VERY CAREFUL to distinguish between DIRECT and
INDIRECT evidence. (Different theologies, especially the ones that are anti-intellectual
and conclude that an individual reading of Scripture is equivalent to a direct revelation
from God, obliterate the difference between direct evidence, indirect evidence, and
even relevant evidence. And, anti-intellectual non-Christians are in the same boat....)

Think carefully about the definitions and examples, presented...
---------- ----------

"Direct and Indirect Evidence

There has been a lot of philosophical debate over what direct evidence is, or indirect, or internal evidence, or external evidence. Although philosophers do not quite agree on the definitions of these terms, the concepts that they are discussing are very important.

I will use these working definitions:

Direct Evidence
Evidence from what I perceive directly. This includes inputs from the 5 physical senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste), and using my mind (thinking). All life experiences, except if we are asleep or unconscious, give us direct evidence. Direct evidence includes:
— my perception of the natural world
— my interactions with people
— my thought about what I read
— praying to God, and listening to what he says
— receiving direct guidance from God

Indirect Evidence

Evidence from what I perceive indirectly. This would be all evidence that I do not perceive directly, but is reported to me in some way. This could be:

— other people telling me their opinions
— reading books that assert some statements as true
— reading books about what other people have thought
— reports about what other people experience
— video, TV, radio, or written reports of the experiences of other people

The philosophers “sort of” use direct evidence to mean what we experience directly, in our life.

Philosophers “sort of” use indirect evidence to mean what is reported to us (second hand), but we do not personally experience. The “in vat” thought experiments try to explore whether we can tell the difference between direct and indirect evidence.

Examples

I see the natural world. (direct sensory evidence)
I think about the order and beauty of the natural world. (direct evidence)
I watch a Nova show on black holes.
The video and sound is direct evidence
Video simulations are questionable evidence
The claims of Neil Tyson are indirect evidence (because I have not personally
experienced black holes)
My thoughts about the video are direct evidence

I talk to Trey about hair goop. (direct evidence)

I read a book on epistemology
Seeing the words on the pages (direct evidence)
The claims of the author are indirect evidence (until I think them through,
and evaluate them, and find them justified, or not)
My thoughts about the claims of the author (direct evidence).

I watch CNN on some probe of politicians
Seeing and hearing the report (direct evidence)
The claims in the report (indirect evidence)
Thinking about the claims in the report (direct evidence)
Conspiracy theories (is this evidence at all?)

I read a book on Computer Science
seeing the words on the pages is direct evidence
The author’s claims are indirect evidence
My thinking about the author’s claims (direct evidence)

I read 13 books on Intelligent Design
Seeing the words on the pages (direct evidence)
The claims of the authors (indirect evidence)
My thinking about the authors’ claims (direct evidence)

The other apostles tell Thomas that Jesus is risen from the dead
The words they say are direct evidence, to Thomas
The claim that Jesus is risen is indirect evidence to Thomas
Thinking about this claim, is direct evidence to Thomas.
Then seeing Jesus personally, is direct evidence for Thomas.


Observations

1. We need to evaluate all evidence, for its worth
2. Direct sensory experience is very important
3. Thinking about what we directly experience, is very important
4. We can sometimes intellectually analyze different logical cases, without actually
experiencing them ourselves
5. We can read what people think, whom we have never met. But we must carefully
evaluate whether the form in which their ideas were transmitted to us, is
accurate. And, we must evaluate their opinions.
6. There are skills to be learned, with regard to evaluating evidence for relevance
or quality." [Making Bible Study Formal, 181-183]
---------- ----------

Note that Christians may read the Scriptures. But TRANSLATIONS of the
scriptures, are not quite the same as reading the Bible in the original
languages. ALSO, although reading the text is direct (visual) evidence),
the proper INTERPRETATION of the text involves an often-faulty
interpretation by a person, as to what the text means. At best, this
individual understanding of what the text means, is indirect evidence, and
must be evaluated for its goodness, or relevance.

However, NOTE THAT THE BIBLE PRESENTS THE IDEA THAT WE ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TRUTH THAT THE SCRIPTURES PRESENT. God's
People are responsible for remembering the great acts of God from the past,
even though WE WERE NOT PRESENT at these acts. Although this record is
INDIRECT EVIDENCE, GOD'S PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED (BY GOD) TO
RECOGNIZE THE HIGH QUALITY OF THIS INDIRECT EVIDENCE, and are
morally-ethically responsible to believe it.


These considerations of direct and indirect evidence, and what the Bible
expects us to believe, may be very unsettling to younger Americans, who may
believe that reality is whatever we individually perceive it to be.

 

[Stephen3141]

Regarding our shared reality (reality, which is available to all of us),
Christians need to think very carefully about examples of the modern world
that allow us to create a personal "reality" (such as making a custom social media
page that only allows in what we want to see there), or getting high on drugs so
that we, individually feel a very different "reality" than the rest of humanity.

The great thinkers through time, have addressed these questions, and modern
Christians need to remember their considerations.
---------- ----------

"Brain-in-Vat

To start, we need to consider the classic problem of a Brain-in-Vat (BIV).
This is a consideration about quality of perceptions/evidence.

Philosophers have used thought experiments (just as Einstein did) to examine questions dealing with what evidence is, and how evidence can (validly) justify our beliefs.

One of these thought experiments was the Brain-in-Vat thought experiment.

Suppose we have a Brain in a Vat, hooked up to all the nutrients that a brain needs to survive (and produce “consciousness,” whatever that is). Suppose that we have an electrical stream of sensory information, zooming into this Brain-in-Vat.

Then,
— could this BIV perceive that it is a BIV?
— could this BIV perceive that it is not a BIV?
— are the perceptions of the BIV valid?
— can the BIV ever get enough evidence to justify belief in any proposition?
— could the BIV ever prove that its perceptions were of a real world?
— could the BIV ever believe that there are other sentient beings?
— could the BIV ever believe that it lives in a shared reality, with other sentient beings?
— could the BIV ever have enough evidence to say “I believe that I exist”?

You may say that considering a Frankenstein like BIV problem is just bad science fiction. But what philosophers for centuries have considered, is the questions that this BIV thought experiment needs to address. And these are the same questions that Christians should be addressing, about the nature of reality.

In response to this thought experiment, one secular philosopher said “I think, therefore I am.” Regardless of how the thinking-consciousness happens, it indicates a real “me”.

When Christians start to address these questions, then they start to think about topics and answers that are apologetics for the Christian faith." [Making Bible Study Formal, 176-177]


Modern Christians need to ask these questions about the hours that they
spend online, in artificial environments heavily crafted by computer algorithms
(showing them what the algorithms think will keep them staying at that site),
and talking with online "group members" (who have again, been suggested
by computer algorithms). IS THIS REALITY?

Is an online, fake environment, what God wants us to consider as "our shared
reality"? Will God hold us accountable for spending our time in an unreal
environment, instead of living life among the People of God?

Does spending hours online, help us to grow toward moral-ethical perfection?
(The CDC does not think that kids spending hours a day online, is even safe!)

How should we have been spending our life, instead?

 

[Stephen3141]

By the way, if we had been using the hours that we spend online, in inane
conversations about conspiracy theories, or trivial subjects, reading books
about the great ideas that historical christians have thought, how different
do you think our life would be?

 

[timothyu]

Even more cluttered with the ideas of man?

 

[com7fy8]

I am discussing the nature of reality,

It is what actually exists and is not only an idea or explanation.

and how we perceive it,

We perceive physical reality with physical senses, and spiritual reality with spiritual senses.

and how that
perception is related to how the Bible presents reality, and how we may perceive it.

We have "senses" with which we can discern good and evil > Hebrews 5:14. In the Bible there are words and explanation and statements about reality. But this is not actually perceiving and experiencing. With God, we can have senses for actually experiencing different sorts of reality. And we can discern between what is good and what is bad - - what is of God's Spirit and what is not.

 

[Stephen3141]

It is what actually exists and is not only an idea or explanation.

We perceive physical reality with physical senses, and spiritual reality with spiritual senses.

We have "senses" with which we can discern good and evil > Hebrews 5:14. In the Bible there are words and explanation and statements about reality. But this is not actually perceiving and experiencing. With God, we can have senses for actually experiencing different sorts of reality. And we can discern between what is good and what is bad - - what is of God's Spirit and what is not.

Your comment is interesting.

But, I would ask you to think about what "spiritual sense" is. It is common among
some Christian groups to (as you have said) think of spiritual insight or spiritual
sensing to come separately to us, from the intellectual abilities of our mind,
using our physical senses, and logic. I would assert that this IS A THEOLOGICAL
POSITION, rather than a position that is presented by the Scriptures.

The Bible presents a human being as a combination (to use fudgy terminology)
of a spirit, and a physical body. I would make the argument that the Apostle Paul
situates the intellect on the spiritual side of our nature, as do many of the ancient
philosophical thinkers. As the "intellect" is involved in "logical" operations,
evaluating perceptions, and evidence, and following the paths of sound logic, to
come to conclusions, I DO NOT THINK THAT YOU CAN PICTURE THE APOSTLE
PAUL AS SEPARATING THE "SPIRITUAL" FROM THE "LOGICAL". I think that trying
to promote this fake separation, is a theological position of many of the low church
Protestant Fundamentalist theologies, but is not a biblical position.

The ancient Jews have a strong tradition of associating "made in the image of God",
with the abilities of the intellect. Of course, THIS is not attractive to the anti-intellectual
Christian theologies, so they try to make this characteristic of being "made in the
image of God" into something else. (Good luck, trying to get a consensus from them,
on what this characteristic is.)
---------- ----------

There is a strong coinciding of the word often associated with the English translation
"heart", with the mind, in the original Greek of the New Testament. Of course, English
speakers often do not associate "heart" with thinking operations, and loyalties, and
choices about values (although well-read English speakers do, as this is part of the
literary tradition in English). But for those who read the Greek New Testament, the
word kardia should always be considered to hold the potential of "heart/mind".

kardia in (BDAG) is...

1 "as seat of physical, spiritual, and mental life"
a. "in an all-inclusive sense: said of God's or Christ's awareness about the inner
life of humans
b. "of inner awareness"
c. "of the will and its decisions"
d. "of moral decisions, the moral life, of vices and virtues"
e. "of emotions, wishes, desires"
f. "especially also of love"
g. "of disposition"
h. "The human kardia is the dwelling-place of heavenly powers
and beings"

2. "interior, center, heart"
(BDAG 508-509)
---------- ----------

This VERY DIFFERENT association of meanings in the Greek, between
"spiritual" and "logical" is missed by Christians who only read the News Testament
in english translaitons. for example...

Peter talks about longing for pure, logikon milk. Then he goes on to talk about
being built into a pneumatikos house, in order to offer pneumatikas sacrifices.
But some english translations translate these related concepts all as "spiritual",
which can easily give a false sense of what "spiritual" means.

1 Rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, insincerity, envy, and all slander; 2 like newborn infants, long for pure spiritual milk so that through it you may grow into salvation, 3 for you have tasted that the Lord is good. 4 Come to him, a living stone, rejected by human beings but chosen and precious in the sight of God, 5 and, like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), 1 Pe 2:1–5.

Note that Paul uses your logikhn service, which is sometimes translated into
the English as "your spiritual service".

CHAPTER 12
Sacrifice of Body and Mind. 1 I urge you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship.
New American Bible, Revised Edition. (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Ro 12:1.
---------- ----------

What I am saying, is that I think that you have a faulty definition of the
difference between "spiritual" and "mind" in your theology. Your
theology avoids the topic of the intellect/mind, and substitutes a
completely different mode of experience (the "spiritual") that also
avoides the perceptions and inputs of the physical body.

I think that you will find, if you get in touch with the original Greek of
the New Testament, that our intellectual activity, as we contemplate
our physical sensory input, falls within what the Bible presents as
"spiritual" activity.

 

[timothyu]

I DO NOT THINK THAT YOU CAN PICTURE THE APOSTLE
PAUL AS SEPARATING THE "SPIRITUAL" FROM THE "LOGICAL"

Was it not the person's personal outlook that mattered. Were they thinking with a mind focused on the ways and logic of this world of man, or that of the Kingdom, a polarizing experience? Two differing logics based on opposing wills. One idea of spiritualism can see no further than our place in the universe while the other establishes a base in God and ways contrary to our natural self interest.

 

[com7fy8]

What I am saying, is that I think that you have a faulty definition of the
difference between "spiritual" and "mind" in your theology. Your
theology avoids the topic of the intellect/mind, and substitutes a
completely different mode of experience (the "spiritual") that also
avoides the perceptions and inputs of the physical body.

I think that you will find, if you get in touch with the original Greek of
the New Testament, that our intellectual activity, as we contemplate
our physical sensory input, falls within what the Bible presents as
"spiritual" activity.

I think Hebrews 5:14 is talking about "senses" which are spiritual, so we can sense the difference between the Holy Spirit and "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience." (in Ephesians 2:2)

And our Apostle Paul *prays* >

"And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment." (Philippians 1:9)

So, he prays for our love to have more and more "discernment". So, then, I connect this with Hebrews 5:14 to show that in God's love we have "senses" of His love so we discern what is in His love and what is not in this love. This is in sharing with God, by our being in His love with His senses *shared* with us who are in union with Him (1 Corinthians 6:17).

And there is spiritual processing which is intellectual. We can sense something and then realize it is good or bad, and then use our spiritual intellect to think about and evaluate what to do about what our senses are telling us.

An example can be that in me I can sense how I am starting to get nasty while starting to argue. Then I might intellectually process how God's word says >

"Do all things without complaining and disputing," (Philippians 2:14)

So . . . oh-oh . . . I am getting in a bad way because I am disputing; so I need to stop, right away, and trust God to correct me. After all, as I know intellectually in my spiritual mind > Hebrews 12:4-14 guarantees how our Father desires to correct us and we do well, then, to actively seek Him to give us His real correction.

So, among other items, we can have spiritual intellectual processing of what to do about what our spiritual senses are telling us.

 

[Stephen3141]

I think Hebrews 5:14 is talking about "senses" which are spiritual, so we can sense the difference between the Holy Spirit and "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience." (in Ephesians 2:2)

And our Apostle Paul *prays* >

"And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment." (Philippians 1:9)

So, he prays for our love to have more and more "discernment". So, then, I connect this with Hebrews 5:14 to show that in God's love we have "senses" of His love so we discern what is in His love and what is not in this love. This is in sharing with God, by our being in His love with His senses *shared* with us who are in union with Him (1 Corinthians 6:17).

And there is spiritual processing which is intellectual. We can sense something and then realize it is good or bad, and then use our spiritual intellect to think about and evaluate what to do about what our senses are telling us.

An example can be that in me I can sense how I am starting to get nasty while starting to argue. Then I might intellectually process how God's word says >

"Do all things without complaining and disputing," (Philippians 2:14)

So . . . oh-oh . . . I am getting in a bad way because I am disputing; so I need to stop, right away, and trust God to correct me. After all, as I know intellectually in my spiritual mind > Hebrews 12:4-14 guarantees how our Father desires to correct us and we do well, then, to actively seek Him to give us His real correction.

So, among other items, we can have spiritual intellectual processing of what to do about what our spiritual senses are telling us.

I think that it is better in some of these examples, to take "spiritual" as indicating
a God-centered target of our thinking, rather than a different mode of using
different "senses".

 

[Stephen3141]

There is some talk of Hebrews 5.14.

This is talking about those who grasp basic teachings, NOT about some
alternate form of sensing. The emphasis here is on proper knowledge,
and discipline.

You cannot hold to "training senses", if you hold to a theology that asserts
that DIFFERENT senses are needed.

11 About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Heb 5:11–14.

This text does not mention vocabulary dealing with "spiritual" vocabulary, but
does mention vocabulary dealing with mental action about basic teachings.

Ephesians 2.2 seems to be dealing with a complete pagan lifestyle that is sinful,
not the topic of what the mind is, or how we perceive reality. Just throwing verses
together, is not a valid argument.

 

[timothyu]

Were we not to reject the ways of man in favour of putting God's will first which is loving all as self (while He continues to fulfil His mission to bring the Kingdom to fruition). This while forwarding the Gospel of said Kingdom (good news of what its to come when we reject the ways of mankind in favour of the Kingdom)?