(May 21, 2026 04:37 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:In crayon, the prefrontal lobe isn't fully developed until the mid-twenties. Hence if you learned anything before that, your understanding could be insufficient, especially if you've had zero personal experience since then.
No..that doesn't follow at all. Everybody has sufficient understanding of all the subjects they studied in school thru the age of 25.
Once the prefrontal cortex (PFC) fully develops around age 25, your brain significantly enhances how it contextualizes past learning.
Why Context Increases
Advanced Integration: The PFC connects separate brain regions, linking old facts to new life experiences.
Refined Emotional Nuance: You process past memories with logic rather than just raw emotion.
Improved Strategic Thinking: The brain better predicts consequences by analyzing past mistakes.
Perspective Taking: You gain the cognitive empathy needed to understand the "why" behind old events.
- Gemini
You had no "new life experiences" as a Christian with a fully developed PFC. You only had new experiences as a non-believer, so you never had the opportunity to contextualize your previous learning as a continuing Christian.
This follows for any other subject as well. If you never use much math as an adult, you likely cannot utilize everything you once learned. It has not been linked to usefulness in your adult life experience.
Quote:And that includes being a Christian as well. If what you are claiming were true then there are no real Christians until after the age of 25, which is clearly false.
Before the mid-twenties, Christians are "spiritual babies."
In Christianity, a "spiritual baby" (or "babe in Christ") is a metaphor for a new believer who is in the early stages of their faith journey. Just as a physical infant requires feeding and guidance, they need basic spiritual nurturing, simple teachings, and discipleship to grow into maturity.
While being a spiritual baby is a normal starting point for any Christian, the term is sometimes used to describe someone who has been a believer for a long time but has failed to grow.
Key characteristics of a spiritual baby include:
Need for "Milk" over "Meat": The apostle Paul used this concept in the New Testament to explain that new believers are not yet ready for complex theology. They require basic teachings (the "milk" of the Word) rather than advanced concepts (the "meat").
Lack of Discernment: Because they are still learning, spiritual infants often lack the ability to tell the difference between sound teaching and false doctrine, making them easily swayed by new or charismatic ideas.
Dependence on Others: They generally cannot feed themselves spiritually and rely heavily on pastors, mentors, or teachers to tell them what to believe.
Focus on Self: Similar to a physical infant who demands constant attention, a spiritual baby may make everything about themselves, their feelings, or what they want from God.
- Gemini
You do not grow much, as a Christian, until you can contextualize what you learn as an adult. Being a non-believer excludes that possibility, because you've already decided that Christianity is irrelevant to your experience. You simply cannot contextualize something in relation to what you've deemed irrelevant... or even harmful. This necessarily follows.
Quote:Quote:A person's grasp of abstract concepts, complex problem-solving, and varied perspectives sharpens significantly. They better understand that real-world situations and dilemmas are rarely black and white.
Doesn't say anything about not being able to understand anything before then. Just a sharper understanding, which in fact I did gain as the years passed and I understood religion better and better by not falling for its lies. Again, believing in a religion isn't necessary to understand it.
Really? Do you often try to grasp abstract concepts or complex problems of things you've already decided were lies? @_@
Sure doesn't seem like you ever plays devil's advocate with your own beliefs. Seems like you've just hardened your position against Christianity, which necessarily excludes further understanding. You've just decided you know it all, from your cognitive childhood. That is hubris.
Quote:Quote:That you believe Christians are excusing that... and just about every other take you have on Christianity... is what you don't appear to understand.
They'd have to be excusing that to vote and support someone who claims that. There's no other way they'd do that.
No, Christians understand that one or more mistakes or character flaws does not make someone irredeemable. God repeatedly used flawed people for his purposes in the Bible. You can love the sinner and hate the sin. Maybe that's a cognitive dissonance you never learned to overcome as a young Christian.
Quote:Quote:So you only ever make claims about what you have had personal experience with?
I would never make a claim about what works with women without having had personal experience with it.
That's twice you've avoided the actual question asked... and we all know why. 9_9
It's transparently ridiculous for a gay man to make any "claim about what works with women" from his "personal experience." So obviously that's not the question.