It doesn’t arise Richard. If God exists He is perfectly rational. Is it rational to go beyond the fact that if He is creator and has left no trace, apart from existence itself and the witness of the early Church, that despite that tracelessness, He has to instantiate each human mind (and infinite other minds) with a non-physical component?
[Or is it a field effect and only certain neurologies can pick it up?]
So this soul thing you believe in isn’t a necessary part of a human being? I mean I don’t see the necessity because I don’t even believe in such a thing. And if the soul you talk about isn’t this mind thing driving bodies like Plato and the pagan Greeks believed in (option 2) then perhaps you are just using the word “soul” as I use the word “spirit” – though I doubt it. And in that case I am not sure whether Apollinarianism applies or not either.
No it is not a synonym – not at all.
The universe and its laws of nature are the creation of God who is spirit. “Supernatural” is a synonym for spiritual and non-physical. Thus it makes no sense to refer to them as unnatural. They are not less natural but more natural since God came first.
I quite agree. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with calling God unnatural.
Yeah that is the number 2 option from Plato and such. I don’t believe in that either. Again that has nothing whatsoever to do with calling God unnatural – which is utterly absurd.
If you don’t believe in God then calling God unnatural is still absurd. It is like calling unicorns primates. It is nonsensical whether you believe unicorns exist or not. And frankly it makes you sound like a troll. Is that what you are? Are just trolling this place?
Synonyms for unnatural
abnormal
bizarre
incredible
odd
outlandish
outrageous
perverse
preposterous
stilted
strange
unusual
affected
aberrant
anomalous
assumed
concocted
contrary
contrived
ersatz
extraordinary
fabricated
factitious
false
feigned
forced
freakish
freaky
imitation
insincere
irregular
labored
made-up
make-believe
perverted
phony
pseudo
put-on
queer
staged
stiff
strained
studied
supernatural
synthetic
theatrical
unaccountable
uncanny
unconforming
unorthodox
Synonyms for supernatural
celestial
fairy
ghostly
heavenly
metaphysical
miraculous
mythical
psychic
superhuman
uncanny
dark
mystic
occult
phantom
secret
superior
unknown
abnormal
concealed
fabulous
hidden
impenetrable
invisible
legendary
mythological
numinous
obscure
paranormal
phenomenal
preternatural
rare
spectral
supermundane
superordinary
supranatural
transcendental
uncomprehensible
unearthly
unfathomable
unintelligible
unknowable
unnatural
unrevealed
unusual
And unicorns are pachyderms colloquially. Equid wth a touch of the rhinocerotid, perissodactylan, ungulate mammals.
I’ve seen a lot of stuff that Klax has posted around here. I don’t think he’s trolling. I think he’s a very intelligent, albeit quirky, Christian.
Yes and “energy” is listed as a synonym of “force” in a thesaurus. But if you gave that as the meaning of force in one of my physics classes you would have received a failing grade. Synonyms are highly context dependent. Just because some B grade movie or hick uses the word supernatural or unnatural in the same way doesn’t mean this is appropriate in theology.
Your acknowledgement is noted. Energy and force in non-physics contexts are therefore perfectly good synonyms. In art, drama, song, music, poetry. Is it only in theology that supernatural and unnatural aren’t? Or in the context of acts?
I acknowledge that you are slick and sassy (to pick a couple of synonyms of “smart”). In a bar after a couple of drinks just about any two words become synonyms, but once energy and force (or supernatural and unnatural for that matter) become synonyms then I am going home to sleep it off. Such is not a discussion that I would consider to have any value whatsoever (and I never drink so much that wouldn’t tell the difference).
I’ll drink to that.
I’ve actually heard that very theory espoused by a Swedenborgian on an atheist website I no longer participate in. It does seem like quite a Rube Goldberg design, doesn’t it?
There’s nothing wrong with that. 
Certainly nothing wrong with this one. Clever and amusing. But if someone told me it was the workings of this device which made the sun come every morning that would be weird.
Just a reminder… the topic is the components of a human person. What are we? Anything besides a body and brain? Is the mind more than a function of the brain? Is there as spirit and or a soul – are these different things or what?
I wonder if “component” is the best word here. Perhaps something like “dimension”, “aspect” or “process” would get at it better without seemingly reducing a person to an object.
However we characterize the inventory, I wonder how the pieces are inter-related and, if there is a hierarchy, which one(s) exert more control? But the question that most interests me is where we place whatever part it is which asks or attempts to answer these questions? Or are we to think of what we do intentionally as the net result of all the component parts working together?
That question at least is a rather easy one for question are things of language and language is the realm and work of the mind. The most we can say is that the mind might seek some input from the body (or less from the spirit) in making its determinations on the matter. As for where the mind is to be found, that is also rather clear, for even if it is identified with the brain it most certainly resides their at least.
As for “component” I would refer to the acknowledgement (in my exchange with Christy) of the caveat that this applies conceptually if not physically. Dimension? no. That would offend my physicist sensibilities. Aspect? I don’t think so. Process? In case of the mind, definitely. For a living organism is a self-organizing dynamic process and that precisely what I think the mind consists of.
For the spirit, however, I don’t think any of these words apply. Consider the meaning of a word or the story told by a book. Would you say that any of these words, “dimension,” “aspect,” or “process” apply? To me these look more like an intangible attachment, for I think one can imagine that a word could have an entirely different meaning and thus by extension that a book where words are given different meanings could tell an entirely different story. So I would say that neither dimension or aspect apply. I suppose you could object, however, that apart from it meaning, the word isn’t really a word at all but only sounds and shapes, and these sounds and shapes are the least important part of a word. Perhaps you could say the same of a person and the spirit.
Of I am not mistaken @Klax identified himself as a panentheist. That also is in line with the type of the mystical, monistic verbiage that he uses. Panentheism is the Faith of the philosopher. It is not the same as Christianity because for one God is not Personal and Jesus Christ is not God.
One could say that the basic issue is Dualism. @Klax put on the web many synonyms for 1) Natural and 2) Unnatural. Panenthism accepts the Supernatural or Metaphysical and rejects of Natural. Scientism, its antithesis goes with the Natural, the physical and rejects the Metaphysical. That leaves Christianity with the middle ground, which must be solid, but is under attack from all sides.
The best way to build the middle ground is on the Person, but for some reason people do not want to go beyond the Mind/Body model of a Person. While this is model has a background in Plato and has been implanted in Christianity it is far from the only model available. Plato had a thripartite Body, Mind, and Spirit model before Socrates insisted on a dualistic one.
Psychology is the Science of the Persona. Freud’s famous triunity is the Id- body, Ego- Mind, and Super Ego- Spirit. There is criticism of therapy only for treatment of psychological problems, but a balanced treatment is accepted as the best treatment.
People have physical problems, mental problems, and spiritual problems. Often they are intertwined. Not everything is physical. Not everything is mental, not everything is spiritual. However if people has a strong sense of who they are and relate well with others, they are able to work out their problems. .
It is the very confused picture which his posts are painting of him that was part of what was behind my suggesting that he is trolling. I put a like on Joshua_Wagner’s post because I nevertheless appreciated that vote of confidence in order to extend more benefit of the doubt.
But he has said that Jesus is God, as far as I can tell. I just had a conversation with him about it.
If he is Trinitarian (which he seems to be) and adheres to The Apostles’ Creed (which he appears to), I’d count him among the faithful.
He is. He does. And the human Jesus was perichoretically certainly, uniquely, fully God by, in nature too; the greatest possible manifestation of God apart from in Person, God seen through a human, the most complex entity we have ever been in relationship with and continue to be by His Spirit and our Father’s, now that He is [a] transcendent [human manifestation], our Brother in Heaven, intercessor with our Father.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.