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.
Are you expecting any certainty? Surely this whole thing is conjecture and / or belief?
The underlying question is what make an individual unique? Why does one person react differently to another when given the same situation or stimuli? Why is one person Homosexual or heterosexual? What makes Mitchel Mitchel? Is it just memories and brain connections? if so then the idea of a sentient computer may not be far off, but…
Why can you not separate automated brain functions and control from sentience (Soul?) Why must they be different or definable? And how does it help anything to do so? Perhaps it is not enough for this to be purely academic discussion? Perhaps it means something to some of us? And maybe in is a part of my personal belief system that you are challenging and / or deriding?
Richard
Everywhere is in Him, but what is where? Every Planck length at every Planck time I would suggest. Quantum uncertainty limits omniscience; One cannot be all knowing of an absence of information, a null, of a determinacy within indeterminacy. No amount of omnipotence can do anything about that. And God cannot do anything at all, eat His cake, with His omnipotence in the material, and have it too. What’s where is pretty fuzzy. There is no such thing as absolute reality. Absolute who, what, where, when. In God.
That would be TMI and eye-glazing for most (maybe include a yawn). Omnipresent suffices nicely.
Aye, it’ll do, even though it can imply God has extent, when He has none.
I agree, He’s certain about indeterminism.
2 Likes
He is extant, though. 
2 Likes
I rather doubt if he is uncertain about anything.
Maybe you should be less certain of yourself.
(The should be an obligatory or system tag when someone has edited a comment after you’ve already replied to it, especially when the edit makes things out of sequence. 
)
After you. I’m certain in my uncertainty of God, that He is certain of indeterminism.