I'm going to guess that's a "no" to having read Ovid lmao

Uhm

The Greek poems describing their cosmology pre-date the Bible

It was actually the early Christians who adopted the view of Aristotle.

Are you saying the belief that God predates the natural world is wrong?

Because that's exactly what Aristotle claimed.

What does that have to do with Aristotle or the Greeks?

That directly implies you believe the Biblical account of Creation to be a lie cooked up by the Illuminati.

:?

I'm not saying you're lying.

I'm only saying you don't seem to understand Christian theology.

I'm interested, @^Kevin^, how do you define truth?

Esoteric?

Not even Clergy are Biblical inerrantsists

Nobody believes the Bible to be literally true. No one thinks Revelations is literal

You're certainly not in the majority of Christian theology

Ye what I mean to say is that there are many different ways to interperet any text; there are multiple ways to define truth

Even incredibly important scholars in the Christian tradition to debate what "truth" is.

Yeah but what is truth?

You can't really explain what it means for something to be true

Yeah, but a conversation on whether or not something is true is useless if two people cannot agree on what it means to be true. So you and DrPeper will have to E P I S T E M O L O G Y

Ovtherwise it'll be hopelessly circular

With all due respect you're both spouting some shite

Looking for historical arguments for theology is futile to say the least

Ey mate I'm not saying anything about Christianity. I'm just saying these claims border upon the nonsensical

Yes

Sure, but you don't need to rely on the Spirit to explain Christian theology

You can - you just don't have to; and something tells me, DrPeper ain't gonna accept the spiritual.

To rely on God's

The Spirit is still your understanding

You're just carving it up in a different set of semantics

I reject the existence of the spiritual

A posteriori arguments are hard to make when I can point out experience csn be delusion

Think of it this way: you had an experience. That's true.

No one can deny that. But why call it spiritual? You're stepping out of "this happened" and into "it must be this."

It could be a million people who hsd the experience, wouldn't make it any more or less spiritual

Sounds like electricity to me

Tbh

Millions of people also "experienced" whatever it is they claim the SS did

So how is this spiritual? Why are we dubbing it has anything to do with spirit? Light sounds pretty physical to me

It's about knowledge-claims mate

That makes

By definition

It into a physical being

Thus not spiritual

You can't see spririt. That's what makes it spirit

Even occultists believe this mate

Odin, tearing out the eye? Third eye?

Webcams are physical

Thus those things you saw are physical. Uhhhhh yeah, Humans only see part of the electromagnetic spectrum

Bats see sound, for instance

You already claimed you saw it with your friends and regular eyes just before

Yeah for sure

Your experiences would indicate they're the same

Spririt and matter that iw

You claimed you saw something in your mind's eye

Your mind is physical

Right we would otherwise call this imagination

I can see all sorts of things in my mind's eye

Yes.

That's how fear works.

It's your mind

Actually

You are explaining the spiritual with the physical

You're using words like "light," or "mind."

These are physical things

Yes. Your experiences are in the physical realm. They're physical.

So they're imaginary?

Then isn't every idea also spiritual?

It's not spirit thought

He's just claiming thought is spirit

But yeah if you're just doing mind/body split sure.

What if spirits are fake thoughts?

And the distinction isn't real?

There's no such thing. All thought is real because it's being thought

Synthetic as in

Fictional

Like Lord of the Rings?

Or Superman

They both are real as they exist

Because they are real mate

Thought is by definition that which is being thought of

So you do not distinguish between the idea and the physical?

An "Idea Being" would be an apt description of what we are; both containing thought and matter

What you described could involve me telling an old dude to steal

What if I told you that that is your unconscious mind

And what you're supposing is you have thoughts from a part of your mind you aren't aware of

And that everything we have discussed is perfectly within the realm of the material and science

No I mean I don't think that because I disagree with the premises

I'm describing what you think

What you have supposed has not stepped outside of psychology.

The spirit realm is a "fake thought"

Otherwise known as fiction

Yes I am further suggesting spirit is just a fake thought

Yes, but all of your accounts of Spirit have been physical thus far

Neither would you

None of us would

It's called nonsense for a reason

If you've been in it & experienced it it thus becomes physical

No such thing mate