Toaster strudel alliance takes on drugs, atheists and liberalism

[Ryantology]

HE DOES! GOD DOES DO THAT ALL THE TIME! Sanctify yourself. Go hang around Pentecostals or Charismatics. God does reveal himself.

Yes, there are controversial issues in the church. It is difficult business to run a church and receive revelation from God. Not all spiritual leaders are saved. Not all have the Holy Spirit. You have to look for it. God is real.

Seek help. You're wasting a big brain and a wonderful vocabulary preaching stupidity and superstition.

[Darkstar]

Good thing I never said anything like that.

Good thing. Wisdom comes when you see things for what they are, not what you want them to be, or someone else wants you to think they are.

You're good at this irony thing, aren't you?

When you abandon all of your selfish desires and desire nothing other than to know, and understand, and see clearly, apart from anything else moving you, just to be aware and to listen, not trusting your mind or anyone elses mind, just listening, trying to understand not only the particular thing in front of you but how everything fits together, and you listen, and listen, and pray, then you will find God.

Wow. That was...extremely vague. If you can't trust your mind or anyone elses, then how do you know that you aren't just crazy? (or being decieved by Satan)

I agree that empathy is a tool for responding to human nature, but it does not ground empathetic desires philosophically, it raises the question of why they are there and what causes them.

They confer and evolutionary advantage. I suppose you think god magically put them there, huh?

But to call human rights opinions ignores the large amount of data that suggests that they are not opinions, many would call this data from intuition far more meaningful than the psuedo-religion of naturalism.

What is "data from intuition"? Are you saying that because it seems like common sense that there should be rights means that idea was magically put into our heads by god?

Either human rights are explained teleologically (people are designed) or they are opinions

necessarily (A v B)
either A and ~B - Teleological/God explanation for rights, deny naturalism
or ~A and B - evidence that rights are teleological is false, accept naturalism

There is a massive amount of evidence to say that A is true, from every single civilization.

There is "a massive amount" of evidence from every civilization for god. Like the Egyptions prove Ra, the Greeks prove Zeus, the Norse prove Thor, etc. Or...do the widely differing and contradictory accounts actually destroy their collective credibility, rather than cement it?

What you are saying is completely contrary to ordinary language in almost every single society. The human experience captures an appraisal of the nature of morality as something that is not reducible to opinions. Indeed, to suggest so would bring sharp rebuke and condemnation in almost every single society in history.

It is not simply that you are moving one idea to another, you are substantially changing the course of human history and removing a great deal of the collective perceptions that humans have had on the nature of their existence.

You mean like the collective perception by nazis that Jews were inferior and should die? What would people think now if Hitler won and rewrote history? I'm most certainly not saying that all morals are mere opinions (though some are). It depends on how you define "opinion". If you read the article I posted (maybe you didn't see it, as it was added with an edit) you wouldn't be having this misunderstanding. One can use reason and empathy to argue for or against certain morals. There are such things as right and wrong, they are just slightly harder to pin down than one might think.

What you are doing is very serious and very evil. Human rights are not reducible to opinions, as the overwhelming witness of history says.

Well...you can be a rather sudden and harsh judge sometimes. Good thing I'm not the same way...
Just to mention, the witness of history also says wars should be liberally fought, as that is how is was for much of recorded history.

Now it is even more vaguely defined than before. Should I say that "authority" is the combination of empathy and reason, then?

No, it is not a combination of either. Those are tools to perceive the nature of authority, not to define it. If you saw a man who through using a combination of empathy and reason sought to fill his house with canned food because he believed the apocalypse was coming, that would not give the mans actions authority.

Well, if he was wrong, then either he wasn't using reason correctly, or any sane person would be following his example.

That is to say, empathy and reason are not sufficient conditions for ethics. It is possible to have any number of possible courses of actions that could be based to some degree on empathy and reason and be wrong. Empathy could be channeled towards false ends, for instance, a defense attorney could arouse a sense of empathy for a crooked CEO on trial. Reason could be used to seemingly ground the belief in what was supposedly true. But the person is still guilty. Empathy is not a sufficient condition for the authority of morals.

Remember what I said about justice contradicting morality? You have to deal with the lawbreakers, even if the way you deal with them (lock them up, take some of their money) would be immoral in other circumstances.

So you pressupose that Christian ethics are the ultimate moral code. What exactly are Christian ethics, anyway Does it contain all of that terrible OT stuff too?

Christian ethics, I would not limit to Christians only as I believe Muslims, Jews, other faiths can be saved, involve people perception of the divine nature inside of them, responding to it like Job and Melchizedek did, that God calls all people to fear God and do what is right. God wants all people to obey God, which means to a large degree, following the command "to love your neighbor as yourself".

That's still rather vague, but I doubt there will ever be a definitive answer as I cannot just ask god for clarification.

Wait a minute..."love your neighbor as yourself"? You mean use empathy?

So evolution gave people a wrong idea of morality and then society fixed it? How does that solve the problem?

Evolution gave a basic understanding of morality, and when society developed, it was refined.

If rights come from the government, why are people not justified in taking them away. If there is a cause that requires rights to be justified outside the government, then there is some external thing that allows rights or not.

If the government takes away our rights, we can overthrow them. That's part of the deal (at least in America). The government is not justified in taking away our rights in that it is part of the government's side of the deal (in exchange for legislative power) to protect our rights, and not abuse the powers vested within it. The power of a democratic government comes from (in theory) the people.

You are treating society as if it has some sort of value apart from peoples perception of it. Why is that? What makes society valuable, even when people don't consider it to be valuable?

It helps you survive, creates social networks, improves the efficiency of many things and helps maintain order.

I think that how we treat each other is the most important thing in life. The question of what is the right way to treat others should be given extremely serious consideration.

Yes, it should. Which is why I researched multiple moral theories and have thought about them, rather than following the advice of a 2000+ year old book without an questioning of the source.

Yeah...so why doesn't god do that? Or are you saying he does so through religious "authority"? There are some theists at AF who aren't too fond of the Roman Catholic Church.

HE DOES! GOD DOES DO THAT ALL THE TIME! Sanctify yourself. Go hang around Pentecostals or Charismatics. God does reveal himself

To people who are already sold on the idea, or very desperate for it to be true. (or just plain crazy)

Yes, there are controversial issues in the church. It is difficult business to run a church and receive revelation from God. Not all spiritual leaders are saved. Not all have the Holy Spirit. You have to look for it. God is real.

So if not all spiritual leaders are saved, then how do we know which are and aren't?

[Angrboda]

Quick note. The Constitution doesn't talk a lot about human rights, and I think many times people are confusing it with the Declaration of Independence when they talk about inalienable rights and such; there is no such language in the Constitution. The Constitution talks mostly about the rights and duties of the government. The rights of the people had to wait for the Bill of Rights. (And people frequently forget that one of the main goals of it were to fix the problems revealed by the Articles of Confederation.)

---

Christian ethics, I would not limit to Christians only as I believe Muslims, Jews, other faiths can be saved, involve people perception of the divine nature inside of them, responding to it like Job and Melchizedek did, that God calls all people to fear God and do what is right.

Hot damn! It looks like I'm saved. Somebody, please, tell me how to undo this?

[jstrodel]

You're good at this irony thing, aren't you?

What is ironic about that statement? Since when do atheists hold a claim to being open minded or clear thinkers? Who has given them that title?

Wow. That was...extremely vague. If you can't trust your mind or anyone elses, then how do you know that you aren't just crazy? (or being decieved by Satan)

You can't trust your mind anyways. You don't know very much. No one does. You have to experience God to know if God is real. There is no substitute. Just like you would have to experience anything to know it. You cannot learn about God through idle speculation.

You have to learn to not trust your mind, and just listen to God. Read about natural theology and follow the proofs and read apologetic if you want to, but you have to listen to God and let God work. The only way that you can know if God is real or not for certain is to experience God. You have to seek the experience to know it is real.

It isn't going crazy. You know that you aren't decieved by Satan by following what is good. Satan is evil. Satan can deceptive people though easily.

They confer and evolutionary advantage. I suppose you think god magically put them there, huh?

Do you think it is possible that people could be required to do something that was not related to evolutionary advantage?

What is more fantastic: believing that God formed the universe or believing that an unknown principle did? Why is it more fantastic?

What is "data from intuition"? Are you saying that because it seems like common sense that there should be rights means that idea was magically put into our heads by god?

I think it is something that people should ponder deeply because every single human society in history has considered morality to be the most important or among the most important issues in existence. The good willed person will apply his heart to understand morality in a deeper way than an atheist apologetic, he will seek to pierce deeply into what it means to be a moral person and moreover WHY that is so.

You aren't making any arguments when you mock religion, you are just showing yourself to be brainwashed with the fruit of hundreds of years of technocrats desperately trying to take control of the West. It is a sad thing to see a young man so full of so many peoples ambitions and so unaware of the source.

There is no philosophical case against theism - Gk Chesterton

There is "a massive amount" of evidence from every civilization for god. Like the Egyptions prove Ra, the Greeks prove Zeus, the Norse prove Thor, etc. Or...do the widely differing and contradictory accounts actually destroy their collective credibility, rather than cement it?

I think they give evidence that the people of the ancient world experienced something. The Bible describes the sorcerers of Egypt as being real. I have experience magic and occultism in my own life, it is certainly real, and I witnessed its reality in spite of my naturalistic prejudices before I was involved.

The issue of competing theological claims makes it impossible that all claims are equally true. But what if the different religious civilizations had an experience of the supernatural and formed their understanding of God around that.

The Christian faith does not honor equally all experiences of the spiritual world. The existence of large numbers of people who have personal testimonies of the supernatural in the ancient world is evidence for the historical fact of the manifestation of the supernatural throughout history.

You mean like the collective perception by nazis that Jews were inferior and should die? What would people think now if Hitler won and rewrote history? I'm most certainly not saying that all morals are mere opinions (though some are). It depends on how you define "opinion". If you read the article I posted (maybe you didn't see it, as it was added with an edit) you wouldn't be having this misunderstanding. One can use reason and empathy to argue for or against certain morals. There are such things as right and wrong, they are just slightly harder to pin down than one might think.

The collective perception of morality does not necessarily mean there is agreement about the nature of morality, or that some people are wrong, only that it seems to be human nature to treat morality as being more than an opinion. I would argue further that the testimony of the human race is that people are aware that they could be wrong, although they hold their beliefs as if they are correct or if there was some truth value. I would argue this holds true even for the Nazi's, even if they serve as an example of those who have deviated from the path given to them by God.

Well...you can be a rather sudden and harsh judge sometimes. Good thing I'm not the same way...
Just to mention, the witness of history also says wars should be liberally fought, as that is how is was for much of recorded history.

I don't mean to be harsh, I consider it my kindness to warn others when the modern world with its lowest common denominator approach to wisdom does not see fir to warn people of the destructive effects of deceitful thinking.

I try to be nice to people as much as I possible can. Kindness is a virtue.

Well, if he was wrong, then either he wasn't using reason correctly, or any sane person would be following his example.

When you say "correctly", what is it that reason is pointing towards? What makes it correct?

Remember what I said about justice contradicting morality? You have to deal with the lawbreakers, even if the way you deal with them (lock them up, take some of their money) would be immoral in other circumstances.

How does it contradict? What happens when they contradict? How do you know which side is the better one? Could you put it in logic? How do you know what to presuppose about what is good?

That's still rather vague, but I doubt there will ever be a definitive answer as I cannot just ask god for clarification.

You can ask God for clarification. God is a friendly person. H'Shem wants to wrap H'Shem's arms around you. God is my best friend.

Wait a minute..."love your neighbor as yourself"? You mean use empathy?

You use empathy, but empathy is not a sufficient cause. Empathy is a desire that proves the natural and supernatural origins of the great commandment, but it does not ground it in anything.

Also, people are to love their neighbor as themselves not only when they feel empathy, but also when they don't. Empathy is a certain feeling that people have. Christians are commanded to love others regardless of whether they feel like it or not.

Evolution gave a basic understanding of morality, and when society developed, it was refined.

Which societies? What about Social Darwinism and Eugenics? Do those figure into the understanding of morality that you describe?

Now, when you say "society developed", are you talking about "liberal society"? You have a very specific understanding of morality that is a product of certain societies and their wars with Christianity. How does your conception of morality serve to explain other moralities understanding? Is it intended to describe all moralities or only that of liberalism?

If the government takes away our rights, we can overthrow them. That's part of the deal (at least in America). The government is not justified in taking away our rights in that it is part of the government's side of the deal (in exchange for legislative power) to protect our rights, and not abuse the powers vested within it. The power of a democratic government comes from (in theory) the people.

But if you overthrow the government because it takes away your rights, don't you lose the rights that existed in the government? What is the thing that makes rights exist independently of the government?

Are rights created by the government or not? You say that come through evolution and they are applied by the government. Is there any idea or any method whatsoever that defines rights in any sort of rigorous way? I don't think you have any way to define rights, I think for your rights are sort of a linguistic gymnastic trick in order to accept that what you call morality would be considered in almost everything single society to be something like a political opinion.

It helps you survive, creates social networks, improves the efficiency of many things and helps maintain order.

Those are important things about society, but it doesn't explain why those things are valuable or why people wouldn't be free to invent other values and prove some other authoritative path some other way.

Yes, it should. Which is why I researched multiple moral theories and have thought about them, rather than following the advice of a 2000+ year old book without an questioning of the source.

It is something that you should do at least 1 hour every day. If you care about others, you will do everything you can to appreciate the nature of the world and try to become a holy person.

To people who are already sold on the idea, or very desperate for it to be true. (or just plain crazy)

No, God saves people all the time who have difficult circumstances. What you said was a naked assertion, you don't have any evidence, it is a prejudice against the church.

So if not all spiritual leaders are saved, then how do we know which are and aren't?

You have to grow in the spirit and understand God. When you know God more it becomes easier and easier to discern who is of God and who is not. A simple way is to test whether the church believes in the scripture or not or whether their are miracles there or not.

[The Grand Nudger]

You can't trust your mind anyways. You don't know very much. No one does. You have to experience God to know if God is real.

At what point during this experience can I start trusting my mind?

[jstrodel]

You trust your mind about as much as a scientist who is creating a hypothesis who has no direct experience of what he is studying.

To know God, like knowing anything, takes experience and seriousness, and meeting the thing at hand on its own terms, not on the terms that your mind invents.

You study rocks on the terms that rocks give you, not on the terms that you make up. The same it is for studying God.

[The Grand Nudger]

Did you miss that or is this the point where we drive on regardless? Honest question.

[Silver]

To know God, like knowing anything, takes experience and seriousness.

All it takes to know God is to forgo all reason and logic.

[Darkstar]

You can't trust your mind anyways. You don't know very much. No one does. You have to experience God to know if God is real. There is no substitute. Just like you would have to experience anything to know it. You cannot learn about God through idle speculation.

You have to learn to not trust your mind, and just listen to God. Read about natural theology and follow the proofs and read apologetic if you want to, but you have to listen to God and let God work. The only way that you can know if God is real or not for certain is to experience God. You have to seek the experience to know it is real.

It isn't going crazy. You know that you aren't decieved by Satan by following what is good. Satan is evil. Satan can deceptive people though easily.

...? You said that one cannot trust their mind, and yet you somehow know that you aren't being decieved by Satan or just crazy. Wouldn't the idea that you can't trust your mind provide support for the idea that "god" was simply your misperceptions?

Do you think it is possible that people could be required to do something that was not related to evolutionary advantage?

Yeah. Culture has invented many things that do not have a direct evolutionary advantage. Take this debate for instance; neither of our survivals hinge upon it. However, it should be noted that a free for all backstabbing society would tend to be less successful than a peaceful and cooperative one.

What is more fantastic: believing that God formed the universe or believing that an unknown principle did? Why is it more fantastic?

God. Because an unknown principle formed god...or a higher god...or a heaping plateful of special pleading.

What is "data from intuition"? Are you saying that because it seems like common sense that there should be rights means that idea was magically put into our heads by god?

I think it is something that people should ponder deeply because every single human society in history has considered morality to be the most important or among the most important issues in existence. The good willed person will apply his heart to understand morality in a deeper way than an atheist apologetic, he will seek to pierce deeply into what it means to be a moral person and moreover WHY that is so.

Which is what I'm doing by opening myself to other theories of morality, rather than sticking with one theory and remaining relatively unquestioning about it. I think that most moral theories have some good parts, but no one theory encompasses all behaviors.

You aren't making any arguments when you mock religion, you are just showing yourself to be brainwashed with the fruit of hundreds of years of technocrats desperately trying to take control of the West. It is a sad thing to see a young man so full of so many peoples ambitions and so unaware of the source.

There is no philosophical case against theism - Gk Chesterton

I'm mocking religion? The more you know...
Well, it depends on what is considered mocking, I guess. Mere mockery is pointless, really.

There is "a massive amount" of evidence from every civilization for god. Like the Egyptions prove Ra, the Greeks prove Zeus, the Norse prove Thor, etc. Or...do the widely differing and contradictory accounts actually destroy their collective credibility, rather than cement it?

I think they give evidence that the people of the ancient world experienced something. The Bible describes the sorcerers of Egypt as being real. I have experience magic and occultism in my own life, it is certainly real, and I witnessed its reality in spite of my naturalistic prejudices before I was involved.

I think they experienced something too, but rather something natural (the sun, lightning, tidal waves) that they attributed to the supernatural because they had a very limited understanding of science.

The issue of competing theological claims makes it impossible that all claims are equally true. But what if the different religious civilizations had an experience of the supernatural and formed their understanding of God around that.

The Christian faith does not honor equally all experiences of the spiritual world. The existence of large numbers of people who have personal testimonies of the supernatural in the ancient world is evidence for the historical fact of the manifestation of the supernatural throughout history.

I don't think it is very strong evidence due to the general scientific ignorance of the people of that time.

The collective perception of morality does not necessarily mean there is agreement about the nature of morality, or that some people are wrong, only that it seems to be human nature to treat morality as being more than an opinion. I would argue further that the testimony of the human race is that people are aware that they could be wrong, although they hold their beliefs as if they are correct or if there was some truth value. I would argue this holds true even for the Nazi's, even if they serve as an example of those who have deviated from the path given to them by God.

It depends on how you define "opinion". If by that you mean simply a whim or feeling, then I would argue that morals can be more substantial than that. It isn't like the opinion that the color black is cool, because there is no solid evidence that can support that as a statement of fact. For morals, on the other hand, there is (hopefully) a solid reason behind each moral rule, rather than simply a mere opinion. So while you can't 100% objectively prove moral rules, you can demonstrate that some morals are superior to others in a way that is more than simply opinion or feeling.

Well...you can be a rather sudden and harsh judge sometimes. Good thing I'm not the same way...
Just to mention, the witness of history also says wars should be liberally fought, as that is how is was for much of recorded history.

I don't mean to be harsh, I consider it my kindness to warn others when the modern world with its lowest common denominator approach to wisdom does not see fir to warn people of the destructive effects of deceitful thinking.

I try to be nice to people as much as I possible can. Kindness is a virtue.

Can you prove it is a virtue, or is that just your opinion?
Just kidding, I also agree. And there is an obvious factual basis to support that idea, rather than simply feelings.

Well, if he was wrong, then either he wasn't using reason correctly, or any sane person would be following his example.

When you say "correctly", what is it that reason is pointing towards? What makes it correct?

Here is where one runs into the "opinion" dilemma. Can it be proven that killing is generally wrong? Sure, you can turn to the golden rule, and explain what would happen to society if killing was seen as a moral act in most circumstances, and how that would impede survival and ruin (end) innocent lives, but what if you just wanted to see the world burn? Then what? It is difficult to objectively prove moral rules, but the concept of human rights, paired with empathy would be a good start. Empathy isn't in and of itself a moral yardstick, but rather a means by which to help determine if an action would be harmful to another person. I'm not sure if that anwered your question...

Remember what I said about justice contradicting morality? You have to deal with the lawbreakers, even if the way you deal with them (lock them up, take some of their money) would be immoral in other circumstances.

How does it contradict? What happens when they contradict? How do you know which side is the better one? Could you put it in logic? How do you know what to presuppose about what is good?

Locking someone up for no reason would be wrong, but you are allowed to lock up lawbreakers. This contradicts normal morals by allowing one to supercede normal moral rules in the name of justice. If the person is guilty, then it is supposed that the contradiction is justified under that pretense that it will prevent other harms (i.e. the person committing another crime). One would hope justice would be better, but you must be careful to make sure the penalty is proportional to the crime in order to maintain this balance. It would be difficult to put in formal logic. I suppose one could develop a mathematical formula for fines payed/years of prision vs. amount of money stolen or...something else, but it might be clumsy ouside of strictly fines. I'm not sure I understand what you are asking in the last part.

You can ask God for clarification. God is a friendly person. H'Shem wants to wrap H'Shem's arms around you. God is my best friend.

Well, I can ask, but will he answer?
(H'Shem? I've only heard Yahweh and Jehovah, or do you mean something else?)

You use empathy, but empathy is not a sufficient cause. Empathy is a desire that proves the natural and supernatural origins of the great commandment, but it does not ground it in anything.

I dont think it proves the supernatural, as it would seem to have an evolutionary basis. And I'm not sure how empathy is a desire.

Also, people are to love their neighbor as themselves not only when they feel empathy, but also when they don't. Empathy is a certain feeling that people have. Christians are commanded to love others regardless of whether they feel like it or not.

Is the love insincere, then? Or is it that they force themselves to feel empathy for other people?

Which societies? What about Social Darwinism and Eugenics? Do those figure into the understanding of morality that you describe?

I don't think Social Darwinism is moral, and even evolutionarily it fails because it is a misapplication of natural selection. Unless for both you mean to ask whether their application would be moral or not, in which case I would note that both are not very popular througout the world. Culture refined morality generally speaking, but this is not to say that every culture continues to do so.

Now, when you say "society developed", are you talking about "liberal society"? You have a very specific understanding of morality that is a product of certain societies and their wars with Christianity. How does your conception of morality serve to explain other moralities understanding? Is it intended to describe all moralities or only that of liberalism?

Liberal society? More like the Sumerians. I'm talking way back. Just learning how to cooperate in multifamily groups and follow basic laws. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "explain other moralities understanding".

But if you overthrow the government because it takes away your rights, don't you lose the rights that existed in the government? What is the thing that makes rights exist independently of the government?

Well, nothing really. If the rights can't be enforced, then they might as well not exist. If you were in a war zone, would your right to life really do anything for you?

Are rights created by the government or not? You say that come through evolution and they are applied by the government. Is there any idea or any method whatsoever that defines rights in any sort of rigorous way? I don't think you have any way to define rights, I think for your rights are sort of a linguistic gymnastic trick in order to accept that what you call morality would be considered in almost everything single society to be something like a political opinion.

Do you mean to say that human rights are a political opinion? There are demonstrable reasons why they should exist (which I believe I have covered more than once).

It helps you survive, creates social networks, improves the efficiency of many things and helps maintain order.

Those are important things about society, but it doesn't explain why those things are valuable or why people wouldn't be free to invent other values and prove some other authoritative path some other way.

Well, if you don't want to live, have any friends, have protection form foreign enemies or use any infrastructure, then I guess these things wouldn't be valuable. Almost no one would think that, though. Someone could try to inent other values, but they would need solid reasons to back them up. (and then we wonder what is considered "solid" and devolve into the opinion dilemma again...)

Yes, it should. Which is why I researched multiple moral theories and have thought about them, rather than following the advice of a 2000+ year old book without an questioning of the source.

It is something that you should do at least 1 hour every day. If you care about others, you will do everything you can to appreciate the nature of the world and try to become a holy person.

So...I should research moral theories for an hour a day, or try to become "holy"? What is holy anyway? Is there any objective definition?

To people who are already sold on the idea, or very desperate for it to be true. (or just plain crazy)

No, God saves people all the time who have difficult circumstances. What you said was a naked assertion, you don't have any evidence, it is a prejudice against the church.[/quote]
You said "reveal". You didn't provide any evidence either. You asked me to ask someone else (who I presume would also not provide any actual evidence besides their word).

You have to grow in the spirit and understand God. When you know God more it becomes easier and easier to discern who is of God and who is not. A simple way is to test whether the church believes in the scripture or not or whether their are miracles there or not.

What kind of miracles? If there were verified miracles at any church, it would be big news. Also, how can one understand god? I mean, he's...god. (and you keep pressuposing his existence, but I'll let it slide)

[jstrodel]

To know God, like knowing anything, takes experience and seriousness.

All it takes to know God is to forgo all reason and logic.

No, you don't know what you are talking about. When you learn a new thing, you don't start imposing preconceived ideas onto it. That makes you narrow minded. Learning is an adventure. If you learn with a closed mind, you are just learning about your presuppositions, you are not actually learning anything new.

If you want to learn about scripture, learn about it. If you want to indoctrinate yourself deeper into your atheists myth, do that, but don't call it using "reason" and "logic". To be able to reason about scripture you must know a fair amount of it.

---

Did you miss that or is this the point where we drive on regardless? Honest question.

When you say "trust your mind", what do you mean? Do you mean that you must filter everything through a criteria of atheist indoctrination? When you study theology, you use your mind.

Do you think "your mind" means the same thing as "naturalism"?