If you were to read some background on the topic you are discussing,
then you'd have more information.
Your claim to 1:Cor:2:14 being background is false
10these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 14The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
What you have in the above is pre-suppositionalism. First the reader has to accept there is a God and then they must accept that this god explains the difference between “reality” and “spiritual reality.”
This differs from a normal person’s view of the world in which first he establishes that the source is objectively present.
I am very surprised that you take 1:Cor as support of anything.
Even theologically, Paul, seems to be self-contradictory. As usual, Paul (or whoever wrote 1Cor) makes statements that seem to him to be logical, but upon analysis, are not.
16 for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
As “the Lord” and Christ are one, how would it be possible not to know the “mind of the Lord” yet “have the mind of Christ”?
Paul never defines “spirituality”. This is not unreasonable as there is no precise definition such that a reasonable person could understand the term and agree on it with others. However, it is this lack of the ability to provide a satisfactory definition that shows that it is the figment on one man’s imagination.
There is little doubt that Paul suffered from a mental illness, his conversion on the road to Damascus is a classic example of temporal lobe epilepsy
in which the patient sees visions that have no basis in reality.
This tends to indicate To the sufferer, the illusion is very real indeed, but to normal people, who experience nothing, it appears to be madness.
So to summarise:
1. The passage you claim as background is irrelevant, illogical, and misleading
2. The person alleged to have written it was given to seizures that created illusions that, to him, were indistinguishable from reality.
3. To accept that the testimony of Paul was accurate, we would have to accept that a mental aberration was the norm and that it is the rest of the entire population of the world who are at fault. I would liken this to the amputee with one leg saying that normality is having one leg.
edti - fixed end note, I hope.