Our human makeup

Originally posted by josephw

http://www.sharpedevelopments.com/Diagram.pdf

This is the Biblical description of what man is or can become.

Or you can believe this!

http://www.ntsec.gov.tw/space/EN/Content/xh0302.jpg

Or you can believe both, since they're not really at odds with each other. There are Christians evolutionists, ya know.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Suppose some non-Christian decides with his heart that he wants to die instead of live forever, and then you receive that heart in a transplant. Will you die?

Eventually. But again, it's just a muscle.

I bet if we keep this up you'll get another post in the recommended list.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Or you can believe both, since they're not really at odds with each other. There are Christians evolutionists, ya know.

Do you think there might be some christian atheists out there too?

You should Google evolution. It's amazing how much information is out there about it. But you won't find a bit of truth in any of it. All it does is create more questionable "theories" with no end in sight of any meaningful answers.

Originally posted by josephw
The heart and soul are synonymous.

Are you fellas that shallow? Alright, so you don't believe you have a soul. You're just the descendant of an amoeba, or whatever. There's nothing more to you than a pile of dirt. That's all evolution can make you?

It's a pathetic, shallow, unimaginitive lie!

"Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light."

And you are living in a self-delusional dream.

Originally posted by josephw
Oink! Oink!

You know what I mean. Why won't you admit it? Could it be that you know I'm right, and admitting it would make you subservient to God?
Is that it? You guys can't stand the idea of a being greater than yourself? Is that why you need evolution? Because it gives you a way out of bowing the knee?

You had better look deep into your soul and at least be honest with yourself.

No. Why is it you guys always ply this non-sense?

GOD ISN'T REAL.


That's it. It's that simple.

Originally posted by josephw
Do you think there might be some christian atheists out there too?

You should Google evolution. It's amazing how much information is out there about it. But you won't find a bit of truth in any of it. All it does is create more questionable "theories" with no end in sight of any meaningful answers.

You are nuts.

Sure, the scientists made it all up. Right. Tin foil hat time, boys.

Originally posted by josephw
The heart and soul are synonymous.

Under the heading "soul" in your chart, we are directed to Job 14:22, which identifies the soul as something that can mourn. Your chart identifies the heart as that which makes choices, i.e., the will. You then claim that the heart and soul are one. So do you think that the soul is both that which has emotional states (like mourning) and that which chooses? Are there any other special psychological properties you think the heart-soul has? Is there any reason why these capacities cannot be explained by reference to the brain? If so, what is this reason?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I love the way that the heart "makes choices".

Has no-one told this guy that the heart is a muscle for pumping blood?

i'm guessing that you think poetry is a waste of good paper😛

Originally posted by josephw
Do you think there might be some christian atheists out there too?

You should Google evolution. It's amazing how much information is out there about it. But you won't find a bit of truth in any of it. All it does is create more questionable "theories" with no end in sight of any meaningful answers.

Josephw, it is my belief that God used an evolutionary process to form our bodies. Then he breathed life into Adam to make him "human". Beleive it or not, ancient Jewish scholars who studied Genesis in the Torah came up with the same idea well before the advent of Darwin and modern science with the added emphasis on the "God equation" to fill in the gaps. For me the gaps include the creation of matter, the creation of life, and the creation of the spirit in man. Everything else science can address because it is simply a study of what God put into motion.

Evolution only adresses our material makeup. It is based in science which is nothing more than a study of the material world. What is wrong with that? Granted, one can never come to a knowledge of a God who is not confined to this material universe by studying a field confined to the material universe. That just does'nt make sense, However, that does not make the study of it evil or not worth while. It is akin to an atheist studying electronics and saying that by doing so one never finds God. Therefore, God must not exist. Then someone else comes along and says that God does exist, therefore, they should have found him in their studies of electronics. They then say that the reason they did not find God in their studies was they simply did not study the right way to find him or were flawed in the way they approached the subject matter becasue surely they would have found him by doing so because he really does exist.

For me the dividing line is for phenomenon that do not occur naturally. This includes abiogenesis and what seperates us from the animals, so to speak. It is my belief that these phenomenon do not have their origins in the material universe thus science is completly inept or wanting in studying such phenomenon.

I think it’s an error to get caught up in physiology here (and I think that various ancients put the seat of the intellect in different organs; it strikes me that the Chinese may have had the will located in the kidneys...). Now we have identified the neuro-physiology as being brain-centered, and the old language becomes more metaphorical.

Nevertheless, the metaphors get confusing. If “heart” is simply a metaphor for will, that’s fine; if it’s a metaphor for emotional states, that’s fine—but be clear about it.

EDIT: I do understand that the question of "why not just the brain" validly goes to the issue of some kind of soul/mind - body dualism (the old "ghost in the machine" ), and so I don't mean to criticize it on that account.

Bbarr: In Greek philosophy, what was the distinction between psuche and nous? In Greek Orthodox writings, nous seems to be often translated as “intellect,” but with a footnote that that English word once referred more to intuitive apprehension than reasoning. psuche is often translated as “soul” (which is not a word I know quite what to do with). Both of them seem sometimes to be translated as “mind.”

Nice to see you back, by the way. Hope all is well with you and yours.

Originally posted by vistesd
I think it’s an error to get caught up in physiology here (and I think that various ancients put the seat of the intellect in different organs; it strikes me that the Chinese may have had the will located in the kidneys...). Now we have identified the neuro-physiology as being brain-centered, and the old language becomes more metaphorical.

Nevertheles ...[text shortened]... translated as “mind.”

Nice to see you back, by the way. Hope all is well with you and yours.

For me the soul is the gateway that connects the material world to the immaterial world/spiritual world and our brains facilitate this. By this definition you might say that our brain functions are our soul, so to speak. I think by in large the terms "heart" and "soul" are used interchangably in this regard. Because both our spirit man and material man meet at this connection we can best ascertain what makes us tick by observing it.

However, to make things more confusing I think the word "soul" and "spirit" also get used interchangably as well.

Originally posted by whodey
For me the soul is the gateway that connects the material world to the immaterial world/spiritual world and our brains facilitate this. By this definition you might say that our brain functions are our soul, so to speak. I think by in large the terms "heart" and "soul" are used interchangably in this regard. Because both our spirit man and material man meet at this connection we can best ascertain what makes us tick by observing it.

Well, I just stuck an edit in my post. Do you think the soul is some kind of “ghost in the machine”? Is it supernatural? Or is that the spirit?

EDIT: I don't mean those to be loaded questions. I just don't want to make the assumption for you. 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, I just stuck an edit in my post. Do you think the soul is some kind of “ghost in the machine”? Is it supernatural?

Is it supernatural? Yes and no. As I said, it is the medium between the material and the supernatural. Therefore, it has elements of the material world we can observe and elements we cannot.

Originally posted by whodey
Is it supernatural? Yes and no. As I said, it is the medium between the material and the supernatural. Therefore, it has elements of the material world we can observe and elements we cannot.

Okay, we’re posting past one another here as my tired mind goes back to do edits.

Is it the action of the supernatural through the physical structure, or—from your point of view—is it part of the physical structure that simply perceives the supernatural?* Same question for “spirit”. (I’m being a bit lazy because I once had an idea of the theological difference between the soul and the spirit, but my brain is too tired to lift it out tonight.)

* Or do you mean that the soul is some kind of natural/supernatural interface?

Originally posted by vistesd
I think it’s an error to get caught up in physiology here (and I think that various ancients put the seat of the intellect in different organs; it strikes me that the Chinese may have had the will located in the kidneys...). Now we have identified the neuro-physiology as being brain-centered, and the old language becomes more metaphorical.

Nevertheles lated as “mind.”

Nice to see you back, by the way. Hope all is well with you and yours.

Thanks, I hope you've been well. Although 'nous' is often loosely translated as 'mind', this is a mistake. 'Nous' refers to a type of intuitive knowledge of general principles or essences, and there is a debate whether this knowledge is to be taken as something like the direct deliverance of an intuitive faculty or if it is just the knowledge that results from good induction. One can profitably contrast 'nous' with 'episteme', where the latter refers to the knowledge derived from valid demonstrations or deductions. 'Psyche' refers to the soul, and there is widespread disagreement between Greek philosophers on what the soul consists of. For Aristotle, the psyche of an entity was (roughly) those properties of the entity that make it the type of entity it is; the psyche is constituted by essential properties. The essential property of humans is the capacity to reason, where one does this well (and thereby counts as a good human being) if one reasons in accord with the virtues.