When we’ve cut out our souls

Knowing facts does not necessarily mean that one knows truth. Truth can be found in beauty and art and even fiction, while lies can be forged from stainless steel facts.

In my last post I referenced a study by Pew Research that found that most people, especially young people, cannot discern between facts and opinion in the news. 

That’s an interesting study but even if we know the facts it doesn’t follow that we know the truth from those facts. Truth, in the deepest sense, is when we not only know the facts but understand their meaning and significance.

The thing about truth is, it’s transformative by nature. We’re never left the same in its revelatory wake. We were given a brain to calculate and analyze, but we were also given a heart (seat of our affections) to perceive transcendent purpose.

If we only know the what but not the why we still haven’t understood truth.

As an aside, if we’re nothing more than unguided, purposeless blobs of matter, enslaved to our DNA, then we’ll probably never know truth because, as atheist John Gray put it, “The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” But Jesus said the truth will make us free (John 8:32). This also implies that not knowing the truth has the opposite effect.

This is probably why we moderns have such difficulty with classic literature. We read it with our woodenly literal minds, thinking we understand what we’ve read but have we not missed the proverbial forest for the trees—the beauty and wonder, the poetic and symbolic—all pointing to something much deeper and more profound than grammatically parsing words printed on a page?

We make judgments without knowledge. And like the textual critics, we meticulously analyze and categorize the text but we never seem to bother to understand what it’s saying to us. This is especially true when reading ancient texts like Scripture…but that’s another subject for another time.

In his book, The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis had some similar things to say about how we moderns have “cut out our own souls” by trading these emotive and experiential wonders of life for cold reason and wooden literalism. The latter we call truth, the former we reject and debunk without even bothering to plumb its transformative depths.

In the first chapter, Lewis refers to two schoolmasters, Gaius and Titius, who are teaching literature; their textbook he calls the “Green Book.” Both the names and book title are fictitious but Lewis assures us that both the authors and book are very real.

His issue is with the implications of what is actually being taught to these students, not necessarily what Gaius and Titius may have intended. For instance, one of those implications is that value statements that express feelings are unimportant.  For instance, they make the following statement to their students:

“We appear to be saying something very important about something: and actually we are only saying something about our own feelings.”

But with all this debunking Lewis makes this point:

“Gaius and Titius, while teaching him nothing about letters, have cut out of his soul, long before he is old enough to choose, the possibility of having certain experiences which thinkers of more authority than they have held to be generous, fruitful, and humane.”

I agree with Lewis. This is where I think we’ve lost the plot. While we’ve gorged ourselves with information we find ourselves famished in really knowing anything meaningful at all. Not only do we have problems discerning facts from opinions, but even when we get the facts we’re not able to perceive what the facts mean to us.

Anyway, here’s a video taken from chapter one titled, “Men Without Chests.” Lewis elucidates this much more eloquently than I can describe. It’s worth watching and, more importantly, understanding.

Advertisements

About Mel Wild

God's favorite (and so are you), a son and a father, happily married to the same beautiful woman for 37 years. We have three incredible adult children. My passion is pursuing the Father's heart in Christ and giving it away to others. My favorite pastime is being iconoclastic and trailblazing the depths of God's grace. I'm also senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in Wisconsin.
This entry was posted in Freedom and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to When we’ve cut out our souls

  1. Beautiful, Mel! You’ve nailed it. This was really good, “While we’ve gorged ourselves with information we find ourselves famished in really knowing anything meaningful at all.” So true!
    I’ve written a few times about how we went and pulled the “soul” right out of fairy tales, took away all the “knowing.” The Little Mermaid for example, now all disney-fied, so she sings fun songs and marries a prince. But the original is just a tragic tale of sacrificial love and her search for a soul.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Very true about the Disney-fied fairytales.They’ve taken the soul right out of them, often in exchange for making subtle political statements or making it entertaining. So we don’t get the richness found in the tragedy and self-sacrifice you mentioned. We just get a sanitized and superficial facsimile.

      It seems we’ve traded the sublime and poignant for the psychological and ideological. It’s actually quite sad because it makes us more opinionated but impoverishes the soul.

  2. Anthony Paul says:

    The irony here is that only those who have actually had the experience will understand what you or Lewis are even saying. This is not to say that it takes a special intelligence or knowledge to be a part of the wonder of which you speak… all one needs is the curiosity to seek it and the humility to accept it. Fine article, Mel.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Thanks Anthony. Yes, the nature of revelatory transformation is a personal experience that’s not very transferable or even provable, but as you said, an attitude of curiosity and humility can open the door to it and, and without leaving logic and reason, we can be enriched by it. I think just realizing that “head knowledge” is not the best knowledge is a good start toward fuller understanding.

      It also think it requires a paradigm shift in thinking, which we can change if our heart is open to it. And then we might find that there are very real and valuable things we can “know” through experiences that even defy explanation. We already experience the transcendent, beautiful, the sublime, the poignant, etc., ever day but we can easily dismiss them in a superficial way and treat those experiences and emotions as less real than “hard facts,” In that way, I think we truncate a fuller understanding of what we’re experiencing.

      What’s interesting about all this is, while we need the technical, rational, and reasoned logic to make things and properly analyze data, the things that matter most to us are none of those things—they are emotive and experiential things like love, joy, peace of mind, compassion, delight, mercy, or family, relationships…. Those are the inspirational and transcendent things that impassion us and make us feel more alive.

  3. KIA says:

    Mel, doesn’t this post all come down to not really caring what the facts support or don’t support, but what the belief and believing the belief does in transforming your life… again, whether the belief or system of belief is justified by the evidence for its truth in reality? Could not the Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist say the same then?

    • Mel Wild says:

      No, it doesn’t come down to that at all. And I’m not saying facts aren’t important. My point has nothing to do with particular religions either. My point is that the facts don’t always lead us to the truth. They don’t necessarily define us or give us identity and purpose. They don’t describe the things that are the most meaningful to us or what we love the most about living. It would be like gathering all the government data there is about a person and saying you know them. You don’t know them at all; you only know certain facts about them. You don’t know the truth about them.

      The reality is, we know almost nothing about WHY we should exist. It takes faith in a lot of things that we call real, and that’s perfectly fine. We must in order to carry on. And we can prove things with math but we can’t prove the most important things about life that way. We have mountains of data but some things still totally eluded our inquiry. We don’t know the truth of it because they defy explanation. And to simply dismiss something because we only except empirical data is a bit silly. There are a lot of things we believe that we have no such evidence for. Yet, the most empirical thing there is, is our own consciousness which we have no provable explanation for either. As I said in the post, we’ve traded the breathtaking, the sublime, the transcendent, the poignant for psychology and neuroscience. I’m not against those thing either, they are helpful but they can never define us or make us feel fully alive.

      • KIA says:

        Mel, honest question and it deserves and honest answer.
        If the facts and Evidence demonstrated 5hat the Bible was incorrect in its telling of history, both old and new testaments, and that the Jesus portrayed in the New Testament was a fictional character based on some historical, but fully human, executed and still fully dead ‘Jesus’… would you believe the evidence and facts or stick with Faith that the Jesus of the New Testament and the Bible, new and old Testaments, are still True because they give your life meaning and purpose?

        • Mel Wild says:

          I gave you my answer and now all you are giving is your opinion and conclusions based on very little or no evidence. And there was nothing honest about your question. It was obviously just a pretext to parrot shop-worn anti-Christian talking points.

        • KIA says:

          No… Please answer without the Dodge and without the insult.

        • Mel Wild says:

          LOL! Right. Another one from your playlist. Did you pose an unanswered question somewhere?

        • …all you are giving is your opinion and conclusions based on very little or no evidence.

          KIA and myself know this is unequivocally wrong and misleading. Mel, it is impossible for us secularists or non-Christians to provide you and your readers here (in your comment sections you Moderate and Censor) the VAST amount of relevant/dependent and INDEPENENT evidence against everything you market here on your blog. Point and case, you will most likely censor out my comment following this one leading to “all the evidence” you claim doesn’t exist. Wagers? 😉

        • Mel Wild says:

          You see this is the problem. You and KIA don’t even get the point of this post! You seriously don’t get it at all. So, it would be idiotic for me to indulge you here because, no matter what the subject, you just drift back into the same thing again. You use every opportunity as a pretense to parrot your same tired anti-Christian talking points. You really need to get some new stuff to say. It’s one-dimensional and, frankly, vapid. And I don’t have the time to waste going around this merry-go-round again and again.

          “…you will most likely censor out my comment following this one leading to “all the evidence” you claim doesn’t exist.”

          Haha. Nice try. “Censor” is another favorite word you guys like to use (right up there with “disingenuous”). No, I’ve already let you promote your link here before and, besides, you guys are off-topic again. Not to mention, a lot of what you put in your linked post has been well travelled, argued, some has been debunked and with the other stuff, there are other just as likely answers, or it’s unknowable. It’s not as iron-clad as you have “marketed” it. You can have people go to YOUR site and read it if they want. I’m not here to promote your blog.

          “…the VAST amount of relevant/dependent and INDEPENENT evidence against everything you market here on your blog.”

          LOL! That’s hilarious. VAST amount….Independent? Marketing? You mean just like what you’re trying to sell here? Sorry, I know all about these sources ad nauseum. They may be independent of Christianity, but their bias is just a different bias. All critique is given from a point of view (and motive). There is evidence, there are facts, and then there is what actually happened. And you CANNOT prove what actually happened or what didn’t happen. This is the bankruptcy of historic criticism, as Walter Wink has put it. And if we are use your favorite link as an indicator, you give a perfect example of knowing “facts” but missing the truth.

        • You see this is the problem. You and KIA don’t even get the point of this post! You seriously don’t get it at all.

          Actually, that is not correct.

          #1 — The “problem” is that the majority of your posts presuppose so many a priori claims you never address and do not want to address. You like to start your posts with the carriage in front of the horse and the carriage has one wheel! LOL

          #2 — You always conveniently forget Mel that KIA and myself spent many years in Christian ministries. From that viewpoint we understand all of your posts. There’s nothing spectacular or anything we haven’t heard already before — i.e. the 4th-century Canonical Bible never changes, remember?

          #3 — Are you going to Uncensor my following comment to this one? The one directing you and anyone else to my Page that addresses your a priori assumptions on 95% – 99% of your posts?

          I’m not here to promote your blog.

          I only stop by once, maybe twice a month, sometimes not even that frequent because it is always good to refine one’s existence and purpose with challenges. You and Christendom call that apologetics. How can one become sharper and refined if they never leave their tiny bubble-of-a-blog and go out into the real world??? If I were “promoting” my Page Mel, I would leave comments like Spammers do or sales & marketing teams do with a shotgun effect — no human touch at all. There’s a difference.

          Sorry, I know all about these sources ad nauseum.

          No, sorry sir, you do not. You never leave your bubble here. LOL

          Nonetheless, as long as you keep your blog open to the Public (yet Moderated & Censored), non-Christians SHOULD read your stuff and give alternative viewpoints. You and everyone else’s institutions do not have exclusive rights to universal truths, much less tunnel-visioned esoteric insights. LOL

          P.S. Now to read and see if it is worth my time or anyone’s to engage insanity. Have a good week Mel.

        • Mel Wild says:

          And you still haven’t addressed the post, but that doesn’t stop you from repeating your spiel. Thanks for stopping by.

        • You need to go back and reread my comments Mel. There is no need to address your posts because of your incessant a priori assumptions. I think you know what that means — you’re intelligeent enough. 🙂

        • Mel Wild says:

          What specific a priori assumptions do you refer to? I make statements that represent my view, just as you incessantly do with your anti-Christian comments.

          Btw, unlike you, I’ve actually read your link and have looked at every point. I didn’t comment on it because to unravel it would take more time than I have in a year. But be assured it’s not cut-and-dried. But you wouldn’t care about that. You just keep repeating every chance you get. Who cares what the subject is about.

        • Mel Wild says:

          There is no need to address your posts because of your incessant a priori assumptions.

          Fair enough. I will ignore all your assumptions also.

        • Mel Wild says:

          #3 — Are you going to Uncensor my following comment to this one?

          Are you going to keep whining and repeating yourself? I don’t censor (unless it’s vulgar). I Uncensored your link the last time you posted it four weeks ago.
          https://melwild.wordpress.com/2018/05/10/the-classical-argument-for-christ/comment-page-1/#comment-19492

  4. “Please answer without the Dodge….”

    Does this have something to do with cars? This simply must have something to do with cars! All the facts and capitalization seem to point in that direction.

    “…the VAST amount of relevant/dependent and INDEPENENT evidence against everything you market here on your blog.”

    Yes,yes clearly Mel is trying to sell a Dodge! No doubt one of those Dodges with the defective transmissions. Like, I totally have all the facts here. My interpretation of the facts might be quite misleading and completely unrelated to the truth, but I have clearly presented all the relevant evidence.

    Indeed, let’s wager that we’re actually really all just standing in a car lot talking about cars. Also, if you disagree with me in anyway, you’re obviously just being a fact denier.

    • Mel Wild says:

      LOL! Right. And I’ve never owned a Dodge, but KIA might as well be selling Dodges; it would be just as irrelevant to the topic as me leaving my non-existent Dodge behind.

      “Also, if you disagree with me in anyway, you’re obviously just being a fact denier.”

      That about says it all with these people, doesn’t it. I grow weary of their peurility. 🙂

    • insanity, aside from your generalized, vague oversimplifications, do you have anything SPECIFIC you want to address?

      Let me remind you and Mel that no human being has higher jurisdictions over another — we all play by the same rules, same standards. Christians are not elite specialists of all things. Your “God” apparently owns those rights. Don’t forget that. When you (or anyone else for that matter) have no answers, that’s when you leave it faithfully in “God’s” hands. 🙂 Oh, and prayer is another response. 😉

      • Well, I’m just going to state right now that Christians really are elite specialists at some things and faith is one of them. When we avail ourselves of the Lord’s wisdom we become much wiser. Worshipping at the altar of our own pride, actually makes us dumber.

        Also, it’s very rare that I ever “have no answers.” I take my questions to the Lord and He gives me answers, at least as much of the answers as I can handle and process. He is faithful to explain things to me, when my questions are genuine..

        It is actually the epitome of arrogance for you to conclude that we all play by the same rules. You as a non Christian simply do not understand faith as I do. I as a non engineer simply do not understand engineering as engineers do. It’s simply a fact of life.

        • 😄 And that is why your Christianity will go extinct — arrogance. Without realizing it IB you are undermining your God’s power and purpose and flowering yourselves with it.

          If you, Mel, and all other Christians refuse to come out into the real world — exactly where Christ spent most all of his time and energy — the church will continue to whither and die. Besides, statistics have consistently shown the last decades that Islam will soon eclipse Christology.

          Have a good week IB.

        • It’s not arrogance at all Professor, it’s simply truth. Christians are way better at faith and at knowing the Lord than you are.

          Also, you might want to take note of the fact that there really are no atheists within Islam. The values that you mock every day are the same ones that grant you the freedom to disbelieve. Islamists tend to just execute those who question them.

        • I will indulge you here this one time IB. Based on your answers/reply to this it might be worth continuing despite what my intuition tells me and based on our past discussions.

          …it’s simply truth.

          Truth according to who/whom?

          Christians are way better at faith and at knowing the Lord than you are.</blockquote?

          Please give reasons or facts to that claim. How do you know that?

          Also, you might want to take note of the fact that there really are no atheists within Islam.

          Definitely wrong IB. You should fact-check before making false-claims. Case and points:

          Alexander Aan – Indonesian atheist and ex-Muslim of Minang descent, who was attacked by an mob and arrested in 2012 for posting “God does not exist” and other antireligious writings on Facebook, attracting international attention.[246]

          Hamed Abdel-Samad – German-Egyptian political scientist, historian and author.

          Zackie Achmat – South African anti-HIV/AIDS activist; founder of the Treatment Action Campaign.[247]

          Ismael Adham – Egyptian writer and philosopher.[248]

          Bonya Ahmed – Bangladeshi-American author, humanist activist and blogger, wife of Avijit Roy; they were victims of a terrorist attack by Islamists.[249]

          Javed Akhtar – noted Indian writer and lyricist.[250]

          Mirza Fatali Akhundov – 19th century Azerbaijani playwright and philosopher.[251]

          Faisal Saeed Al Mutar – Iraqi-born satirist, human rights activist, writer, founder of the Global Secular Humanist Movement (GSHM).[252]

          Waleed Al-Husseini – Palestinian philosopher, essayist, writer, blogger and co-founder of Council of Ex-Muslims in France (fr) (CEMF).

          Bisi Alimi – Nigerian gay rights activist based in the United Kingdom

          Al-Ma’arri – blind Arab philosopher, poet and writer.[253]

          Abdullah al-Qasemi – Saudi born Egyptian

          Ayaan Hirsi Ali – Somali-born Dutch feminist, writer, and politician.[254]

          Ramiz Alia – Albanian communist leader and former president of Albania.[255]

          Kareem Amer – Egyptian blogger.[256][257]

          Ridvan Aydemir – German born American Youtuber and internet activist.[258]

          Humayun Azad – Bangladeshi author, poet, scholar and linguists.[259][260]

          Hassan Bahara – Moroccan-Dutch writer.[261]

          Pelin Batu – Turkish actress and television personality[262][263]

          Valon Behrami – Kosovo-born Swiss professional footballer who plays as a midfielder for English club Watford.[264]

          Hafid Bouazza – Moroccan-Dutch writer.[265][266]

          Parvin Darabi – Iranian born American activist, writer and woman’s rights activist.[267]

          Turan Dursun – Turkish writer. He was once a Turkish mufti and later authored many books critical of Islam.[268]

          Kacem El Ghazzali – Moroccan-Swiss writer and activist.[269]

          Zineb El Rhazoui – Moroccan-born French journalist and former columnist for Paris-based satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo..[270]

          Afshin Ellian – Iranian professor[271]

          Aliaa Magda Elmahdy – Egyptian internet activist and women’s rights advocate.

          Irfan Habib-Indian Historian.[272]

          Sarah Haider – American writer, speaker, political activist and co-founder of Ex-Muslims of North America.[273]

          Ahmed Harqan – Egyptian human rights activist and outspoken atheist.[274]

          Enver Hoxha – Communist dictator who declared Albania the first atheist state, and who has been identified as an “arch-atheist.”[275]

          Fauzia Ilyas – founder of Atheist & Agnostic Alliance Pakistan

          Ismail Kadare – world-renowned Albanian writer.[276]

          Sarmad Kashani – seventeenth-century mystical poet and sufi saint, arrived from Persia to India, beheaded for assumed heresy by the Mughal emperor, Aurungzebe. Sarmad renounced Judaism, briefly converting to Islam and then Hinduism. He later denounced all religions and rejected belief in gods.[277][278]

          Sibel Kekilli – German actress of Turkish origin, known for her role as ‘Shae’ in Game of Thrones. Kekili was raised as a Muslim, but does not belong to any religion anymore, and although she stated she respects all religions,[279] has criticised the physical mistreatment of women in Islam.[280]

          As’ad Abu Khalil – Lebanese professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus. He describes himself as an “atheist secularist”.[281][282]

          Faik Konitza – Albanian stylist, critic, publicist and political figure that had a tremendous impact on Albanian writing and on Albanian culture at the time.[283]

          Nahla Mahmoud – Sudanese-born British writer, secularist, environmentalist, and human rights activist, and spokesperson for the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain.[284]

          Lounès Matoub – Algerian Berber Kabyle singer.[285]

          Aroj Ali Matubbar – self-taught Bangladeshi philosopher

          Asif Mohiuddin – Bangladeshi blogger and secularist[286]

          Maryam Namazie – Iranian communist, political activist and leader of the British apostate-organization Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain[287]

          Kumail Nanjiani – Pakistani American stand-up comic and actor.[288]

          Taslima Nasrin – Bangladeshi author, feminist, human rights activist and secular humanist.[289]

          Armin Navabi – Iranian-born atheist and secular activist, author, podcaster and vlogger, founder of Atheist Republic
          Aziz Nesin – popular Turkish humorist and author of more than 100 books.[290]

          Ayaz Nizami – Pakistani Islamic Scholar became atheist, Founder of realisticapproach.org.[291] an Urdu website about atheism, and Vice President of Atheist & Agnostic Alliance Pakistan[292] He is currently detained under the charges of blasphemy and could face the death penalty.[293][294]

          Barack Obama Sr. – Kenyan senior governmental economist, and the father of 44th U.S. President Barack Obama[295]

          Ayman Odeh – Israeli politician

          Arifur Rahman (blogger) – London-based Bangladishi atheist blogger and activist.[296]

          Ali A. Rizvi – Pakistani-born Canadian physician, writer and ex-Muslim activist[297]

          Avijit Roy – Bangladeshi-American author, scientist, humanist activist and blogger, husband of Bonya Ahmed; they were victims of a terrorist attack by Islamists.[249]

          Salman Rushdie – British-Indian novelist and essayist.[245]

          Aliyah Saleem – British secular education campaigner, writer and market researcher, activist and co-founder of advocacy group Faith to Faithless.

          Fazıl Say – Turkish pianist, sued for having expressed his atheism publicly.

          Anwar Shaikh – British author of Pakistani descent.[298]

          Ahmed Sharif – Bangladeshi humanist book seller, human rights activist and secular humanist.[299]

          Ali Soilih – Comorian socialist revolutionary; president of the Comoros[300]

          MD Tipu Sultan – Bangladeshi Human Right Activist and Writer.[301]

          Muhammad Syed – Pakistani American speaker and political activist. Co-founder of Ex-Muslims of North America.

          Arzu Toker – German-speaking writer, journalist, publicist, translator of Turkish descent, cofounder of the Central Council of Ex-Muslims in Germany.

          Sam Touzani – Belgian actor, tv presenter, choreographer and comedian with Moroccan roots, critic of both the far-right and Islamism.[302]

          Ebru Umar – Dutch columnist of Turkish descent, critic of Islam and of Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan

          Charles Wardle

          The values that you mock every day are the same ones that grant you the freedom to disbelieve.

          Irrelevant. But since you bring that up, you and I both live (fortunately, for now) in a nation that grants everyone a level of Freedom of Expression. And I will fight for that basic human right no matter WHO or what that person is or believes, including you IB. 🙂 Would you do the same for me?

          Islamists tend to just execute those who question them.

          Obviously, but not just Islamists either. Basic human freedoms require responsibilities and sometimes life. History has shown this time and time again. It repeats itself in history too many times because (self-righteous) groups/institutions keep wanting to control people and repress those rights… often while being hypocrites themselves. 😉

        • “Truth according to who/whom?”

          Pretty much based on the laws of both nature, physics, and observable reality? One simply does not go to a layman for surgery, one goes to a surgeon. One does not go to an atheist to learn about who God is, since they don’t believe in God. It is irrational to claim expertise in an area you insist does not even exist.

          It is somewhat funny you label my factual statement about Islamists and their intolerance towards atheists as, “irrelevant.” Suit yourself, I am just saying, such things do actually become quite relevant when you are actually standing in the fire.

        • Pretty much based on the laws of both nature, physics, and observable reality?

          Please tell me those “laws of both nature, physics,” and since “observable reality” is so incredibly vague and general, I need you to specify exactly what you are referencing. And I’m asking sincerely IB. This is just way too vague for me (and most I suspect too) to have to TRY and guess/read your mind. The rest of that paragraph is not relevant, however, for “laws of nature, physics” (including Quantum Physics), and empirical reality, who or whom do YOU go to? I most definitely would like to see your list of experts or non-laymen.

          …such things do actually become quite relevant when you are actually standing in the fire.

          Again, I don’t want to guess, or read your mind, or put words in your mouth by trying to decipher something so ambiguous. Would you please elaborate exactly what you mean? Thank you.

          That said though regarding relevant, when I was abroad on our Christian mission’s field in the early 1990’s in West Africa — Sierra Leon & Liberia to be exact — just prior to and during the earliest stages of those horrible inhumane astrocities and bad civil wars there, I was most definitely knee-deep within “the fire” I think you MIGHT be mysteriously alluding to. In fact, I watched the ending of a public stoning of a 14-15 year old boy that was accused of stealing in Monrovia, Liberia before myself and two other colleagues tried to step-in. We were almost mobbed for interfering as foreigners and threatened to be arrested ourselves by the local elders and “police.” This may not be the type of “fire” you are implying so that’s why I’m asking you to PLEASE be more specific. Thanks.

          This reply-questions SHOULD take you awhile to answer so I’ll check back tomorrrow or Thursday.

        • “Please tell me those “laws of both nature, physics,” and since “observable reality” is so incredibly vague and general, I need you to specify exactly what you are referencing”

          Observable reality is so vague
          and general?! I don’t know what to say, Professor! I assumed that we both agreed with the idea that you would choose a surgeon rather than a layman to take out your appendix.

          “…..trying to decipher something so ambiguous…..”

          “Observable reality” is really not all that ambiguous, unless of course you are inhaling laughing gas or something. In which case it become somewhat pointless trying to converse with you. So, like, nevermind. I try to avoid too many conversations with non sentient beings trapped in so called “ambiguous reality.”

        • Wow. You answered this way too quickly — which implies a lot. :/

          I assumed that we both agreed with the idea that you would choose a surgeon rather than a layman to take out your appendix.

          Yes, of course. That goes without saying and you are merely stating the obvious. However, that is not what I was challenging or asking you was it? As you quoted me correctly:

          “Please tell me those “laws of both nature, physics,” and since “observable reality” is so incredibly vague and general, I need you to specify exactly what you are referencing”

          That’s what I asked, about those “laws of both nature, physics, and observable reality” that YOU stated. What are they exactly? One would THINK we both should be knowledgeable enough about them, but I have found on the planet with 7.6-billion, that assuming that or stating something so vague as you did, it is better safer to spell-out exactly what a person (you) mean when speaking so generally.

          “Observable reality” is really not all that ambiguous…

          I would totally disagree IB. For one simple easy example that anyone would understand, if a traffic accident involving 3 vehicles happened at a busy intersection with two roadside cafes at 2 corners, then many, many pedestrians around the intersection witnessing, then other vehicles there not involved in the pile-up, how many different versions of the accident — leading up to, during, and right after — would all be identical, word-for-word? How many would be different?

          See how incredibly EASY “observable reality” is to recount erroneously, omitting certain details, or even if police asked 1-hr or 2-hrs later these witnesses, how many narratives would be exactly the same? Even from the same person, but much later? LOL

          I try to avoid too many conversations with non sentient beings trapped in so called “ambiguous reality.”

          I will ignore that. It begins to reflect a certain maturity level.

          I don’t know what to say, Professor!

          Ahh, thank you for being honest there. It is perfectly fine to say that as many times as necessary. 😉

          Alright, I will await your further elaborations and clarifications on the early questions. Thanks IB.

        • Well here, this seems to be quite relevant, “obfuscation,” 1530s, from Latin obfuscatus, past participle of obfuscare “to darken,” from ob “over” (see ob-) + fuscare “to make dark,” from fuscus “dark.”

          In other words Professor, you are simply the Blind Pharisee of Obfuscation possessing all the intelligence of a table lamp with none of it’s usefulness or practicality.

          I require enlightening conversations, not endarkening ones that just plunge the world into blatant stupidity and endless confusion.

          I do not await your “further elaborations” because I have already concluded that you really have nothing useful to say.

        • 🤭 Ahh, now I CAN appreciate your candor and simple dullness IB as remiss as it is. Thank you. You have saved us all invaluable time with your final quick posture (I won’t elaborate on the posture; you’ve made it clear – LOL) and lack of … well, too many to list here. But obviously there’s no savvy or a godly perserverance found here. C’est la vie.

          Thank you again for implying “I don’t know Professor.” Living in two DISTINCT realities, in this particular case, suits everyone just fine. 😉

          Regards IB. 👋

        • Mel Wild says:

          I do not await your “further elaborations” because I have already concluded that you really have nothing useful to say.

          Exactly, IB. You are spot-on! Bravo! Bravo! The exalted professor will just blather on with his usual incoherent ramblings and endless confusion, while tossing out arrogant and condescending quips under the guise of banter. Meanwhile, we can just ignore him and spend our time doing something more meaningful, like what I’m doing, watching paint dry in my bathroom we’re remodeling. I’m feeling brighter already! It’s nice to get out of the poisonous air. Have a happy fourth! 🙂

        • Mel Wild says:

          Christianity will go extinct? Wishful thinking, at best. According to Pew, Christianity will grow 35% by 2025; all forms of secularism will decrease from 16% to 13%, so good luck with that.

        • Give more sources Mel than just one, than just Pew. Be fair and equitable.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Haha. That’s rich. You make crazy assertions that Christianity will be extinct that has NO basis in reality and I need more sources. Right. Whatever. You are a piece of work.

        • Let’s make a time capsule Mel, bury it and see who’s realistic. 😉

          Enjoy your 4th of July.

        • While you are doing your better homework Mel…

          Since weblinks go into Moderation on your blog…

          “Why Muslims are the world’s fastest-growing religious group” — from Pew Research Center

          A YouTube video that projects the eclipse to be by 2050: (can provide URL if you want)… It reads:

          Muslims-are-projected-to-grow-faster-than-the-world-s-overall-population-growth
          largest religion by 2050 while India will overtake Indonesia as the country with the largest Muslim population, according to a new study.

          The Hindu population worldwide will rise by 34%, from a little over 1 billion to nearly 1.4 billion by 2050, the Pew Research Center’s study on “The Future of World Regions” projected.

          Hindus will make up 14.9% of the world’s total population, behind Christians (31.4%) and Muslims (29.7%), while people unaffiliated to any religious group will account for 13.2%, the study said.

          “By 2050, the study projects India to be the country with the largest number of Muslims – more than 310 million – even though Hindus will continue to make up a solid majority of India’s population (77%), while Muslims remain a minority (18%),” Pew Research Center said.

          “Indonesia will have the third-largest number of Muslims, with Pakistan ranking second,” it said.

          Muslims are projected to grow faster than the world’s overall population growth while Hindus and Christians are projected to roughly keep pace with growth trends, the study said.

          “Over the next four decades, Christians will remain the largest religious group, but Islam will grow faster than any other major religion,” it said.

          The report predicted that by 2050 there will be near parity between Muslims (2.8 billion, or 30% of the population) and Christians (2.9 billion, or 31%), possibly for the first time in history.

          There were 1.6 billion Muslims in 2010, compared to 2.17 billion Christians.

          If current trends continue, Islam will become the world’s most popular faith after 2070, it said.

          “The farther into the future we look, the more uncertainty exists, which is why the projections stop at 2050. But if they are extended into the second half of this century, the projections forecast Muslims and Christians to be roughly equal in number around 2070, with Muslims the slightly larger group after that year,” the organisation said.

          By 2050, Muslims will make up about 10% of Europe’s population, up from 5.9% in 2010.

          Over the same period, the number of Hindus in Europe is expected to roughly double, from a little under 1.4 million (0.2% of Europe’s population) to nearly 2.7 million (0.4%), mainly as a result of immigration, it said.

          In North America, Hindus are expected to nearly double in decades ahead, from 0.7% in 2010 to 1.3% in 2050, when migration is included in projection models. Without migration, the Hindu share of the region’s population will remain the same.

          “In the US, Christians will decline from more than three-quarters of the population in 2010 to two-thirds in 2050, with corresponding rises of religious ‘nones’ as well as Muslims, Hindus and others. At mid-century, Judaism will no longer be the largest non-Christian religion in the US: Muslims are projected to be more numerous than people who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion,” the organisation said.

          Buddhism is the only faith that is not expected to increase its followers, due to an ageing population and stable fertility rates in Buddhist countries such as China, Japan and Thailand.

          The projections considered fertility rates, trends in youth population growth and religious conversion statistics.

  5. Anthony Paul says:

    At last… our great day of freedom and truth has finally arrived!! To the sun and moon I say, Be ashamed for you have been eclipsed by the new light of knowledge which gloriously covers us, the masses of the great unwashed, on this auspicious day. Stars…. fall from your heavenly throne bowing to the great minds here at work as centuries of mystery are fully revealed to all by a few short strokes on the master’s keyboard.

    And what shall I say of the great men from so many walks of life who toiled and suffered under the illusion that the greater part of us all resides in the spiritual realms which they believed to be Reality. Some of the great mystics of various traditions like Thomas Aquinas, Meister Eckhart and Rumi; the more contemporary mystical philosophers like Ananda Coomaraswamy and the Zen Master Thich Naht Hahn; psychologists who believed that the spiritual is in fact the only Reality while life as we perceive it is the illusion: Carl Gustave Jung and Otto Rank; for men of science who were mystically inclined, one need go no further than Einstein himself. All these men have on this great day been exposed for what they truly are: Idiots!

    Today should be declared a special day of thanksgiving to (the self-proclaimed) Professor Taboo and all of the illuminati here present for opening the eyes of those of us who have so arrogantly believed that life is more than just a molecular randomness of movement throughout the universe.

    Thank you, (self-proclaimed) Professor…. and please give my best regards to Howdey Doody.

    • LOL… 😄 No more “self-proclaimed” than the Pastor here, yourself, IB, or anyone on this blog.

      Thanks for chuckle Dr. Paul. Btw, how would one go read your blog and credentials? 😉

      • Anthony Paul says:

        You are welcome, P-T…. just happy to have lightened up the heavy load being moved around in this conversation. The fact that you can laugh at yourself among other things, though, has me intrigued.

        You say you were among the missionaries in West Africa… Please excuse me, but I can’t help but wonder how some one who could show so much love for others, even to risking his own life for a fellow human being, could turn so against something his soul led him to only a relatively short time ago… (Asking rhetorically) who or what could have hurt you so badly as to leave you so without faith?

        “Credentials?”, you ask…. sorry to disappoint, but I have none…. In point of fact, I am quite simply, no one! Just another fool out of so many who loves to dance with the One who has no name but who so many call “Father/Mother.”

        Whatever you may or may not believe right now, I sincerely hope that you will find your way back home one day.

        • If you’d like to get to know me Dr. Paul, I welcome you over to my blog — there’s also a Contact page if you’d like to make it private. Makes me no difference whatsoever.

          Home is this wonderful Pale Blue Dot of a planet — I’ve travelled most of it, lived on several contiinents and I can easily say all of it is home for me. A lot more people should try it before talking as if they know everything about it, how it works, and how it all started. Whole lot of naivety and ignorance going around when you never leave your tiny bubbles. LOL 😉

          Enjoy your 4th of July. 👋

        • Anthony Paul says:

          ” Whole lot of naivety and ignorance going around when you never leave your tiny bubbles. LOL 😉”

          I totally agree!

          Thanks for your offer, Professor… but I think I’ll pass. It’s not that I’m averse to dealing with people and belief systems which are different from my own, but the plain truth is that I’m currently immersed in a personal discovery of Christianity from a more universally mystical perspective — what the sages call “the Cosmic Christ” among us all; this is a definite break for me from the traditional view of Christianity as a closed system whose myth is unique to a particular time and place and allotted to a chosen people. So I beg your indulgence in understanding that I’m stretching myself right now and I’d like to stay on this path which is quite challenging but also both intuitively and intellectually rewarding and freeing for me. I don’t believe that the distraction of a personal dialogue which from my part would be centered in the intuitive rather than the purely rational would be helpful to either of us at this time.

          You stay cool and have a Happy 4th of July as well! 🙏

  6. Nan says:

    Mel, in one of your comments you wrote: My point is that the facts don’t always lead us to the truth. makes me ask … if facts (which are generally considered verified information) will not lead people to the truth, what does?

    In another comment, you said, There is evidence, there are facts, and then there is what actually happened. Isn’t “what actually happened” generally considered evidence? For example, would it be evidence, facts, or “what actually happened” when a personal has a conversion experience?

    • Mel Wild says:

      Nan, there is evidence or facts, and there are conclusions that we make from the evidence or facts. It doesn’t necessarily follow that our conclusion is true. For instance, two people may have the same facts and make opposite conclusions. One is true and the other isn’t true.

      For example, would it be evidence, facts, or “what actually happened” when a personal has a conversion experience?

      The evidence would be that the person is apparently changed (converted). The facts would be the circumstances and what he or she believed that brought about that change. What actually happened depends on what the person was actually believing in, pursuing, and why. But we still would not know the truth of what happened because it is a personal experience. We weren’t there. Only this person actually knows the truth, and maybe they aren’t even aware of what they are doing. We, the outside observer, can only see the fruit of the experience. You see, none of these things are the same thing.

    • Nan, are you asking a lawyer, courtroom judge, police investigator, Dr. S. Holmes 😉 , forensic investigator, scientist/historian specializing in their field, geneticist, embryologist, paleoanthropologist, etc, etc, i.e. experts in their particular domains? Or are you asking the general public, “laymen” if I can borrow IB’s profound term, truck drivers, construction workers, miners, sanitation-workers, etc, etc. IOW, to use IB’s analogy… who should we REALLY solicit for evidence, facts, or “what actually happened”?

      And as you know already from some of my posts regarding human nature and human perception, errors are found everywhere! No one group or person can be 100% precise 100% of the time — peer-reviewers greatly help in hedging against fallacy and inaccuracies. Fyi, when I use “peer-review” that also includes a very wide range of scrutinizing contenders, something not all groups/institutions allow. OR…

      Are you asking Mel? 😉

      • Mel Wild says:

        I think she was asking me what I meant by my specific comments, TB. In fact, her question actually had something to do with the post, unlike yours. But thanks for butting in with your irrelevant legalistic comments about facts, showing again that you don’t get it (of course, you’ve already told you don’t care to).

        • Of course it has something to do with the post AND many other applications and circumstances in general. Expand your vision and forethought Mel.

          Let’s see what Nan has to say, after all, I was asking her. No need to be so sensitive.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Let’s see what Nan has to say, after all, I was asking her. No need to be so sensitive.

          No, it’s not for you to change the subject (which you do all the time). It totally misses the point and takes her question to me totally out of context and changes the thread to what YOU want to talk about. Here’s a fact for you. You’ve demonstrated that you will use any specific point, no matter what it is, as a pretense so you can pontificate your sweeping generalizations and belittle people who are not as lofty and enlightened as you. Well, I’m not being sensitive, I’m just annoyed by your pompous condescension. Ironically, you still don’t get the point of the post (but you think you do) so it just makes you sound stupid and foolish. But carry on if you want. You make a great case in point for the actual subject. Got to go watch paint dry.

      • Nan says:

        PT, I “get” your sarcasm, but I was simply asking Mel about a couple of his statements he made that I felt were rather ambiguous. Not entirely satisfied with his answer because it seemed a bit extraneous, but I’ve learned that Mel doesn’t look at life through the same lens as many other people … and one has to take that into consideration.

        • …but I’ve learned that Mel doesn’t look at life through the same lens as many other people…

          Spot on there. Same with IB up above in our discussion — there is ONE (lens), and ONLY ONE method of interpreting the world, humans, and life.

          Totally agree with you Nan. Subjectivism or Pluralism, or a term/belief I’ve mentioned many times here… Monism, and anything that is the antithesis of Monism hits many buttons here, many nerves, so much so that they fail to grasp the FULL meaning and scope of Monism vs. Pluralism. Yet, the majority of commenters here, including Mel, cannot phathom anything outside of Monism… or THEIR Monism.

          Thank you for the response Ma’am. 🙂

  7. ” I’ve learned that Mel doesn’t look at life through the same lens as many other people …”

    Nan actually pays you such a lovely compliment, Mel. I’m sure you already know this, but that lens is our Father’s lens and it’s the same thing that gives great photographers the ability to really see people as Jesus sees them. I’m a big fan of that lens, the one that allows us to think outside the box or to find the truth and beauty in the world. Not “looking at life through the lens of many other people,” is actually called being set apart, also known as Holy, and you catch a glimpse of Him in ordinary people all the time.

    • Nan says:

      Not quite what I meant, IB, but whatever rocks your boat. 😎

      Happy 4th!

    • IB,

      Are you spending your 4th of July holiday over at the Grace Church in West Seattle?

      P.S. That’s a rhetorical question. 😉 Have a good 4th as well.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Thanks for getting it, IB. The lens is exactly what I’m talking about in this post. And all this mocking from TB and others only proves C.S. Lewis’s point in the video (which they will likely never bother to watch). People think because they know facts they have the truth, but they are not necessarily the same thing. I’m done trying to explain things to people who don’t care to understand. Have a great fourth. It was for freedom that Christ set us free. 🎆

  8. ColorStorm says:

    Jack Lewis has no comparable equal today. Who could first argue against him here, and second, disagree with his premises? His logic is deep and sound and reveals shallow thinking which leads to poor conclusions.

    A teacher’s job is ‘not to cut down jungles, but to irrigate deserts,’ said Lewis. Love that. He said ‘the heart cannot replace the head……….’ but asserts it should take heed if I could paraphrase. The truth of feelings which are fleeting and the dangers that stem from such, is a point of heavy weight.

    Way too much good stuff here to comment further on, but great vid.

    • Mel Wild says:

      You’re right, Lewis had no equal. Most people today write superficially by comparison. The Abolition of Man is a brilliant book.

      The head AND the heart, both being needed for understanding, is precisely the point of this post, which our atheist friends don’t seem to (want to) get. 🙂

      • ColorStorm says:

        To be fair, atheists do not have sole copyrights for not ‘getting’ things. Many we the believer also have put forth notions entirely untested and unproven based on wishful thinking, that unfortunately do not hold up against the scrutiny of evidence or scripture.

        But we write poorly because we think poorly. How many times have you run across someone who has parroted things that they never tasted themselves?

        It’s almost like they are trying to feed you with someone else’s food.

  9. Pingback: Jesus Christ IS the Truth | In My Father's House

  10. Pingback: Facts, knowing, and mystery | In My Father's House

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.