/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Why does it have to be one or the other?

Feels can't explain the world. Live in reality.

>>664369

>>664369

Hi /christian/, I've recently stumbled into a lot of heretics who are trying to tell me that feels explain the material world and that realistic or scientific analysis is actually inferior. I tried to make the heathen understand that all true understanding is gathered from logic and reason, not from analyzing "feeling circumstances" (lmao), but he wouldn't listen. ITT: discuss how we can establish the definitive dominance of Realz over Feelz.

>>664369

>>664378

I feel like something heretical happened here already.

People don't reason objectively about ultimate reality, hence the necessity of faith, however people should be capable of reasoning objectively about contingent reality, such as whether dinner is burned or if the car is broken, such ideas are well within our limits to understand without faith and are based entirely upon "realz" if you must spit on the language of Shakespeare.

>>664398

My response to OP was to highlight their faulty thinking by inverting it. Its stupid o assume that logic and reason, the gifts God gave man to understand the world, are inadiquate to understanding the world. Its a denial of reality and reason as legitimate, which is an ingredient in the lefty-pill, often shilled by (((progressives)))

I'm not saying faith doesn't have a place, but emotion is not a good bedrock for understanding the creation God put us in. Its heretical to the extreme.

>>664617

I'm with you there, partly I'm trying to figure out what faith is in a clear and concise manner, so I'm rambling a bit.

Really emotion is more of an impediment, negative emotion especially.

>>664724

I disagree that feels define reality, they may affect perception but a tree doesn't stop being a tree just because you feel like its not. And some truths which we as mankind can descern given the reason, logic, and wisdom from on high, are so undeniably true that to deny them is to deny reality itself.

To put it platonically, folowing emotion is continuing to look at the wall of the cave, but to know reality requires we turn our heads around and see the underlying truth which exists outside our experiences and whims, such as that 2 + 2 shall always equal 4.

>>664895

you didn't understood what I was saying.

Feels =/= Feels

affects =/= intuitions

so, two kinds, the earthly one (widly instinct of the animal and of the cave) and the transcendent ones, gave by God.

I was defending the intuition of 2+2 = true, the same about metaphysical truths, the world of the ideas.

>>664972

>you didn't understood what I was saying.

My apologies, tbh i didn't understand most of what you said since the sentences and logical progression was rather hap-hazard.

You're missing the point.

It ultimately is a matter of nominalism (kikes, pagans, cultural "christians" and atheists) vs realism (Plato, Aristotle and Christians).

Quick rundown: Nominalists believe Beauty doesn't exist outside personal opinion while Realists think it is as Absolute as the number two.

Nominalism is how society is controlled, you don't have to silence opposition if their very language is butchered and coopted.

The word symbol is a great example. The average person thinks it means the exact opposite of what it meant in medieval and classical times.

Another great example is the word Love. It now means you make me feel good and "I love you" means I want you to have many dopamine rushes.

The nominalists have changed how thw Bible is interpreted without changing a single letter from it, but changing what that words point to.

The classic moronic line "How can God love the world if there is suffering?" makes perfect sense if you use that butchered version of love.

The idiot you argued thought moral concepts such as Good didin't exist, that's the problem.

>>664369

feels = reals, is = ought there is no divide

:/\)