Natural man cannot understand Spiritual things

[Skyangel]

1 Cor 2 :14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

The bible tells us the natural man can't understand anything spiritual because they are spiritually discerned.
What does that mean to you readers?

According to the bible, a person needs to use spiritual discernment in order to understand spiritual things.

The natural man is the man who is governed by his senses and wants physical proof of everything. The natural man rejects spiritual discernment and spiritual proof.

How do any people who admit they are not spiritual expect to get proof of God or anything spiritual for that matter when they refuse to use spiritual discernment but want physical and sensual proof?

Science is incapable of proving spiritual things because science does not use spiritual discernment.

Spiritual discernment comes from what science calls the right brain as opposed to the left brain.

Check/test which side of the brain you are using the most here> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/right- ... 1114603615

Your mind can make that animation on the above site turn around depending on whether you are using the right or left brain.

To some people the dancer is turning clockwise and to others she is dancing anticlockwise.

Which way do you see her turning?

If you cannot see her turning clockwise, you are not using the spiritual side of your mind ( right brain functions) at all.

[Crazy Ivan]

Are you suggesting that something is incorrect because it is the conventional way it is done?

As expected, and in consistent fashion with straw men, this question is not preceded by a quotation, because you know I suggested no such thing.

Which is the correct way to read English and why is it correct?
Which is the correct way to read Hebrew and why is it correct?

The correct way is the way in which they make sense. The dancer animation makes as much sense one way or the reverse way. How the frames are arranged is irrelevant.

I am not claiming the animation frames should be played from left to right.

Good, because the way the frames are individually disposed is irrelevant, what matters is the chronology.

I am saying that is the way they ARE played and I know I am correct in saying that.

Animation frames are played chronologically when required. Left-right, right-left, top-bottom, bottom-top... this is all irrelevant, and only concerns the individual frames' spatial arrangement in whatever medium they are. I suppose that typically they are arranged "left-right", or "top-bottom". But there is no correct way to arrange the frames, provided they are played chronologically, which as far as the dancer is concerned is immaterial. That's why one can reverse the rotation, because it makes equal sense either way, and no way is correct.

You have no way of knowing whether or not the animator specifically wanted the dancer to rotate one way over another. You can just assume he did over the conventional way of disposing the individual frames. Do you understand the difference?

You cannnot take the animation and number it from left to right because the animation programs automatically number the frames in the sequence they are played.

That has nothing to do with "left-right". Provided the sequence is run chronologically when it must to make sense, the frames can be arranged any number of ways.

[Skyangel]

The correct way is the way in which they make sense. The dancer animation makes as much sense one way or the reverse way. How the frames are arranged is irrelevant.

Any animation at all can be reversed but the reversed animation will still play its sequence from left to right.
How the frames in an animation are arranged is definately relevant. I can prove it by using the same frames and placing them in random order to show you how it messes up the animation if you want me to do it?

Good, because the way the frames are individually disposed is irrelevant, what matters is the chronology.

Animation frames are played chronologically when required. Left-right, right-left, top-bottom, bottom-top... this is all irrelevant, and only concerns the individual frames' spatial arrangement in whatever medium they are. I suppose that typically they are arranged "left-right", or "top-bottom". But there is no correct way to arrange the frames, provided they are played chronologically, which as far as the dancer is concerned is immaterial. That's why one can reverse the rotation, because it makes equal sense either way, and no way is correct.

I agree with the chronological aspect and that is what I am saying is always chronological regardless of how the frames are arranged but the arrangement of the frames still does make a difference in the animation itself and therefore there is a correct way to arrange the frames for them to make sense one way or the other. I can prove it to you by arranging them in random order to show you they can be arranged to make no sense and to not play smoothly. However, if you do ask me to do it, you will need to wait till I get to my own computer where I have the animation program.

[Crazy Ivan]

Any animation at all can be reversed but the reversed animation will still play its sequence from left to right.

They can all technically be reversed, but in general one way doesn't make chronological sense, and is clearly distinguished from the other. So we can reasonably assume one orientation is specifically intended. Again, "left to right" is only a reference to the spatial arrangement of the individual frames IN RELATION to the movement of the medium. This is only relevant if the medium in which the frames travel moves from the right to the left. Digitally, there is no such movement. The computer couldn't care less how they're "arranged", because they're NOT arranged in any way unless we wish to observe them, which isn't necessary for the animation to run. "Left to right" has no meaning if the medium does not move from right to left.

How the frames in an animation are arranged is definately relevant. I can prove it by using the same frames and placing them in random order to show you how it messes up the animation if you want me to do it?

If by "random order" you're implying a different chronological setup, then that's obviously not what we're talking about. Of course it messes up the animation. If the frames are going to travel in a physical medium, which will only travel right to left, then of course the animation runs left to right, but that is only due to a physical limitation the computer does not have. Suppose the medium physically runs from bottom to top? -edit: Then the animation would run top-bottom. In this case there is no issue at all of "left-right" or "right-left".

I agree with the chronological aspect and that is what I am saying is always chronological regardless of how the frames are arranged but the arrangement of the frames still does make a difference in the animation itself and therefore there is a correct way to arrange the frames for them to make sense one way or the other. I can prove it to you by arranging them in random order to show you they can be arranged to make no sense and to not play smoothly. However, if you do ask me to do it, you will need to wait till I get to my own computer where I have the animation program.

Look, you're completely missing the point. If an animation makes as much sense one way or the reverse way, then the arrangement of the frames one way, or in this case the way that rotates the dancer clockwise, can be assumed arbitrary. Unless revealed so by the animator, there is no reason to believe the rotation clockwise is the "correct" way, or the intended way. Instead of arranging them both ways, for which there would be no need beyond settling this argument, the animator will pick one at random, since the effect is the same. I do NOT acknowledge this arbitrary choice as indicative of the "right" way to run the animation. If you do, I would consider this choice as arbitrary as the animator's choice.

[I AM ALL I AM]

G'day.

For informational purposes:-

I have a few different animation programs, some of which run from left to right, though most are from top to bottom. Chronological order is the only concern for the animation program.

By the way, if the frames used are in a continuous loop, then it also doesn't matter where the starting point is and is again only a matter of the chronological order of the frames.

[Skyangel]

1 Cor 2 :14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

The bible tells us the natural man can't understand anything spiritual because they are spiritually discerned.
What does that mean to you readers?

According to the bible, a person needs to use spiritual discernment in order to understand spiritual things.

The natural man is the man who is governed by his senses and wants physical proof of everything. The natural man rejects spiritual discernment and spiritual proof.

How do any people who admit they are not spiritual expect to get proof of God or anything spiritual for that matter when they refuse to use spiritual discernment but want physical and sensual proof?

Science is incapable of proving spiritual things because science does not use spiritual discernment.

Spiritual discernment comes from what science calls the right brain as opposed to the left brain.

Check/test which side of the brain you are using the most here> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/right- ... 1114603615

Your mind can make that animation on the above site turn around depending on whether you are using the right or left brain.

To some people the dancer is turning clockwise and to others she is dancing anticlockwise.

Which way do you see her turning?

If you cannot see her turning clockwise, you are not using the spiritual side of your mind ( right brain functions) at all.

Hi skyangel...
this is a very good topic for debate.

I understand your wanting to elevate these writings and have them be meaningful, however, I question the differences between the teachings of Paul and those of Jesus.

Jesus NEVER said such words....because it was not his call -- he left the judging to the Father. Paul took this upon himself, in many cases.

At any rate, spiritual discernment is a very subjective thing, isn;t it? I've known many who claimed to be and were not, to their public humiliation. Lets' cut the crap here. Those that 'claim' to be discerned are not always so, and those that may not realize they have heard from God have indeed heard from Him.

So, where does that leave your "paul" scriptures?

Who actually said the words in the book of Corinthians is quite irrelevant to those who believe the whole bible is the Word of God through His servants.
Jesus actually implies the same thing when He said on the cross " Father forgive them for they know not what they do" That implies that those who crucified Him had no spiritual discernment to see He was telling the Truth.

As to judgment, that all depends on your perspective as to who left the judging to whom. It is a new topic I might start as a debate at a later date.

The word discernment according to the merriam webster dictionary means
1 : the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discernment


The word "discerned" from 1Cor 2:14 according to the bible lexicon http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... G350&t=KJV means
1) examine or judge
a) to investigate, examine, enquire into, scrutinise, sift, question
1) specifically in a forensic sense of a judge to hold an investigation
2) to interrogate, examine the accused or witnesses
b) to judge of, estimate, determine (the excellence or defects of any person or thing


Discernment can obviously be natural as well as spiritual. I tend to agree with you when you say "Those that 'claim' to be discerning are not always so."
That is evidenced in the stories of the bible where supposedly spiritual people were wrong about Jesus and completely misinterpreted and misjudged Him.

It only proves to me that some people have no clue what they are talking about, let alone what they are doing. They have no more clue about the difference between spiritual discernment and natural discernment than they do about a real diamond and a fake diamond when they are placed side by side and look alike.

[Crazy Ivan]

A pivotal question remains unanswered, based on the OP's presumptions. Since I CAN see the dancer rotate clockwise, why does religious literature only seem to "spin" one way for me? Skyangel's previous "answer" was:

Possibly because you have not made the effort to alter it since no one has ever convinced you it is possible to see two perceptions at the same time or explained how some writings can appear to be false on outward appearances in reality and and still be true in reality in a metaphoric sense?

That possibility is negated by the very test Skyangel brought up, which demonstrates I can perceive both ways. The interesting bit here is that to Skyangel some writings can be a metaphor for something else. But the fact of the matter is, it is my logical reasoning, or the part allegedly attributable to the right part of my brain, that generates the assumption that the whole thing is metaphorical. Since my "spiritual side" is "unlocked", as evidenced by the ability to rotate the dancer clockwise, that I don't see anything except metaphor is a good indication there is nothing else besides metaphor. Meaning every reference to a god is metaphorical, and "god" itself is also a metaphor for something else, whatever that may be, along with anything else related to "god". Except religions are not built solely around metaphors. Eventually, a supernatural element is acknowledged, for which my completely aware "spiritual side" finds no evidence.

[Skyangel]

In response to posts,

we hear that man must "choose Christ." but then we are told that natural man cannot discern spiritual things. ??

I see the dancer spin both ways, sometimes erratically. A colleague only saw one way, and DID NOT BELIEVE that it could turn another way.
To me, this is the same mechanism by which others are at times killed or imprisoned, simply because their perceptions are not believed by others to be true. ie. Witch hunts...

Blessings!
Brian

p.s. Do two half-wits make a whole-wit?

How can anyone "choose Christ" when they do not understand what it is they are choosing or accepting as opposed to what they are not choosing or rejecting?

Do people reject anything when they accept Christ? If "Christ" is a choice between the right and left brain which do you choose? Can you choose one side over the other side of your brain? Can you choose imagination and totally disregard all logic? Can you choose logic and disregard all imagination?

As for your two "half wits". They only make a whole wit when all the lights go on and they are both at home at the same time. Many times the lights appear to be on but no one appears to home.

[Skyangel]

... I do not ask anyone to believe my imaginations or intuition any more than they believe their own. ...

G'day Skyangel.

So people that believe that their imagination to be real are the ones that you ask to believe in your imagination.

Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows the fool.
Obi Wan Kenobi.

The ones who can turn their imaginations into reality are the ones who fool the fools.
The wise know they are fools. The fools only think they are wise.

[I AM ALL I AM]

G'day Crazy Ivan.

It could possibly mean that you have the functions of both sides of the brain (logic & imagination) integrated. Having an integration of both aspects would allow you to recognise when either one is in use, and therefore you recognise the fantasy of imagination when it is presented to you as if it was fact.

[Nec Spe Nec Metu]

In response to posts,

we hear that man must "choose Christ." but then we are told that natural man cannot discern spiritual things. ??

I see the dancer spin both ways, sometimes erratically. A colleague only saw one way, and DID NOT BELIEVE that it could turn another way.
To me, this is the same mechanism by which others are at times killed or imprisoned, simply because their perceptions are not believed by others to be true. ie. Witch hunts...

Blessings!
Brian

p.s. Do two half-wits make a whole-wit?

How can anyone "choose Christ" when they do not understand what it is they are choosing or accepting as opposed to what they are not choosing or rejecting?

Do people reject anything when they accept Christ? If "Christ" is a choice between the right and left brain which do you choose? Can you choose one side over the other side of your brain? Can you choose imagination and totally disregard all logic? Can you choose logic and disregard all imagination?

As for your two "half wits". They only make a whole wit when all the lights go on and they are both at home at the same time. Many times the lights appear to be on but no one appears to home.

A non-theist can have imagination. I am a non-theist. I have imagination. I use my imagination, but I also use my logic. My logic prevents me from acknowledging my imagination when it entertains idiotic notions. My imagination is very much alive, but tempered by the acknowledgement that my logic has the final word.

I apply my logic and imagination when it comes to the real, objective world. I apply my logic and imagination when it comes to my sense of self. The two are not mutually exclusive. My logic is a tool to reconcile my imagination with reality and acknowledge that reality trumps imagination when imagination is not manifested in the world through logical means.