45 posts were split to a new topic: Spin-off Trinity discussion from mind, soul, spirit thread
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. 
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
Methinks it is not our place to judge, criticise or condemn any one else’s view of God or how they cognise it.
Richard
You’re more than welcome to Richard.
Martin
Judge not or be judged
Richard
If I am in rational, faithful error, I seek correction. I like your take, the manner of it.
1 Like
I am curious, though, how one believes in God without believing that he is omnipresent.