Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Spirituality
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 76 of 141 (517519)
08-01-2009 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Hyroglyphx
07-31-2009 12:29 PM


Re: Interesting, but off-topic, questions
The problem is, Jaywill, is that there is no way of knowing with the least bit of certainty either way until we cross that threshold for ourselves. At the end of the day when all things are said and done, the bottom line is that it comes down to two opposing sets of "beliefs." Onifre believes he will melt away in to oblivion and you believe there will be an accounting of ourselves on the day of our judgment.
If you'll notice, that is why I wrote "... time will tell. Won't it?"
There is only one immutable fact in that, and that is that you both believe in something based on some superficial evidence. And that's only because we just don't know. We are no more equipped to answer that question than when the first human pondered it.
I regard Christ as authoritative to at least point us in the right direction. If you can think of someone in history with as much weight on the subject I would consider they're input.
As it stands, we may not have immutable proof but I can't easily dismiss what Jesus has to say about it. Is there some reason why I should be more impressed with onfire's reasoning than in the testimony of Jesus ?
jaywill:
Maybe you are noble and think the only justice is that you know yourself that you could have done better.
I am not noble at all. I am a scoundrel. I am desperately wicked. This is one reason why I felt that I am on the right track to believe in the Savior Christ. Somehow it occured to me that because the need is so great there must be an answer to the need.
(lol. Here I am responding to my own sentence!)
Now it could be that there is none. But I think I am on the right track to approach Christ about my need. He just has a kind of approvedness on the subject. His resume if you will, is impressive.
And the evidence of His working in my life lead me to believe that I am on the right track.
We all quietly suffer that torment. Every man, woman, and child's greatest enemy is themselves. And we all desperately seek an answer beyond ourselves.
Why should that be? I agree that that is a problem with many. Then we should ask why it should be that way. Maybe the is a legitimate reason for that. Maybe the Bible shows why that is so and what can be done about it.
"He who commits sin is a slave to sin."
But Christ did not just leave us there in that desparation. He presents Himself as our solution. He has been working marvelously for me in this. I think I need the rest of my life to continue to explore Christ as the answer.
Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Again, no way of truly knowing. I'm sure you'll tell us all about your relationship with Jesus and how you know he's real, but we don't know what is wishful thinking on your part and what is actual. So, again, we are at an impasse.
Don't dispair about this. Some things are just a timing matter.
Your little photo "Please Nigga!" is offensive to me as a black person. I think it may be even to some Caucasian participants in the Forum. And I think one reason you may be having trouble knowing the truth of sin is that you rather enjoy bigotry.
So being at an impasse can also be a problem of one just having too much of a good time being evil and offensive to other human beings. In that case you may just be having too much of a good time being wicked rather than really seeking the truth.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-31-2009 12:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 77 of 141 (517545)
08-01-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by onifre
07-31-2009 10:56 AM


Re: Interesting, but off-topic, questions
Right, but you could still be wrong about this.
Yes. Maybe I am all wrong. How's that?
The point is that what one feels is right has no bearing on what other people might feel is right for them.
Yes.
The outcome, (being spiritual), is the only acheivable goal that is common. The means by which one chooses to get there is completely up to the individual.
Hold on now. If I could be completely wrong, why not you too? In that case this sentnece:
"The means by which one chooses to get there is completely up to the individual."
could be entirely falacious. How do you know ?
Neither way is the right way for everyone. Each individual finds their own journey to spirituality in their life experiences.
Hold on. If I can be totally mistaken why not you too?
Perhaps this magnanimous statement is totally incorrect.
What is this "jaywill, make room for that fact that you could be mistaken. In the mean time here's the truth, my opinion"?
I am not a heavy on philodophy but it seems that the concept you apply to me should also apply to you as well.
Yours happens to be through your belief in God and Christ, other people choose their own path.
Hold on. I could be wrong. So I think your magnanimus apologetic could also be wrong.
jaywill:
See if you can consult some of the people in your life. I am pretty sure that a couple of them will inform you that, "Yes onfire, I think you sinned. At least on this occasion you sinned against me."
Is there no one in your life that you have done dirt to? I mean an evil deed/s. Nobody? Go ask her. Ask them.
onfire:
I've done plenty of people wrong, but I don't consider myself a "sinner" in the biblical sense, nor do I accept that the term "sinner" or "sin" defines our actions.
What then would you call the action of someone who stole from you? Did you ever have someone steal something from you? If you don't like the term sin do you have something else you'd like to call it?
I think the term sin has a original word picture of "missing the mark". It invokes the word picture of someone shooting an arrow and missing the mark.
I think the bibilcal idea is that there is a moral bull's eye in our bevarior "shooting of the arrow". We miss the mark when we shoot. We sin.
I ask myself "What does it look like to always hit the buul's eye?" The answer is to look at and study the life of one Jesus Christ. I think if you are a little bit open hearted, when you read through the life of Jesus and think of yourself in His light, you may agree that you have missed the mark.
I know I see that. But I am not closed to His loving extension of His help to bring me into forgiveness and something better. I got convinced that I should not close my mind off to that. But it did take a long time.
The word is derived from religion and as such carries with it a theological definition that does have any meaning to atheists.
I think that even the atheist in the right circumstances would be irrate that someone has "sinned" against him. Or he might use some other term. I don't believe that the atheist is morally neutral, especially when the trangression has been directly against him.
An inituity or transgression commited directly against the atheist, I am pretty sure, he would regard as a moral failure, a sin, or some other term useful to him.
In short I don't think you live as if sinning is not a reality.
That's not to say that atheists don't consider their actions wrong,
like I said I have done plenty of people wrong and have felt bad for it (and regreted it), but there's no reason to attach a biblical definition to my actions. It's well enough just knowing that you did wrong, regret your actions and harm you may have caused and learned from the experiences.
I think that if you would be consistent with you philosophy though, you would argue that you have no strong basis to judge yourself as having done wrong.
You're saying "I have done wrong" is not to strongly based. It is like saying "I like chocolate rather than vanilla." There is no ultimate law and no law giver. Your personal taste and preference seems the only thing that informs you. But that is as fleeting as your taste for anything.
Note I didn't say you had no basis. I said that your basis of dicribing good deeds and evil deeds is weak. It seems as arbitrary as your taste in icecream. So why not assume that you really have not done either good or bad?
The alternative is that there is a universal moral law of some kind somehow implanted in you and everyone else. We may have difficulties with certain finer issues. But this does not mean that there is no moral law. Rather it probably means there is or we would not be in disagreement about it.
Now at this point I have to pay attention when the Bible says that the law of God is written on the hearts of the nations. And it says that the human conscience accuses or excuses our deeds informed by that inward moral compass.
If so, it having been placed there by our Creator is not a trivial answer. It deserves serious attention to its possibility. I think it is a superior belief to thinking that the non-material ethical law innate in human consciousness is only the result of random interactions of chemicals in the physical brain.
And that I think should be the Atheistic basis answer. Perhaps they hope one day to hold in a lab room beaker 30 millograms of "loyalty" or 50 millograms of "patience" or 1 litter of "devotion" or a gram of "love" or a half gram of "selfishness" or a pint of "pride".
The commitment to an all encompassing materialism makes the existence of these attributes a problem for the Atheist, I think.
jaywill:
The only thing is that we tend to be strict with others and merciful on ourselves. This is not equal.
onfire:
Yes, and an example of that is what you are doing with, Stile. You are being strict with him and his ideology, yet feel that your belief has granted you mercy.
Hold on here onfire. Have I said that any mercy shown towards me is NOT AVAILABLE to Stile also? If I gave that impression let me correct it. The same blood of Jesus which cleanses me from my sins was also shed for Stile.
I will however, have a hard time arguing with you that I HAVE received mercy. When I think of the arguments of some of the atheists I do often say to myself "It is amazing that I actually believe the way I do."
So I think I have to agree at least that I feel that God has had mercy on me to give me the ability to belief the Gospel when so many snart people like you have been chisling away at it for centries now.
I mean do confess that I believe in the Son of God because of sheer mercy. But I don't think that mercy is not available to someone else. It may just be a matter of timing.
The point is that we usually judge others by our own standards. We are all guilty of this, you as well as shown by your posts. But if we stop to consider that the individual you are talking to feels that they have spirituality in their lives, in the same way as you feel you have it in your life, then there is no reason to harp on the means by which we got there, it's well enough that we are both there.
Hold on. I could be wrong. You could be as well.
It is arbitrary for you to teach "jaywill, you could be mistaken. So then my concept that all paths are equal has to be the truth."
Apply to yourself what you apply to me. How do you know all paths are equal? Maybe they are not.
Anyway, I think with Christ there is a huge amount of leeway as to how a man comes to know Him. And I find also that most Atheist end up with a much more elitist and restrictive way to know about the truth in life than Christ's invitation "Whoseover believes ...".
I think that you cannot improve upon the wide open scope of the invitation to whosoever believes may have eternal life. I think the efforts of thinkers to improve upon the wide open invitation of the Gospel invariably come up with something much more restrictive.
The Atheists I talk to about the most essential issues of life insist on knowing about the finer points of natural selection, the cosmology of big Bang, the Quantum Physics just come out of cutting edge science, the behavior of this or that amino acid.
Most of the Atheists I talk to who complain that the Gospel is too restrictive seem to want me to have two or three Phds. in all the finer scientific information that they have mastered. And it is only when you understand all this intricate science that you may hope to know really how and why man is here.
But the love and forgiveness in Jesus can be grasped by a child or an aged man. This is not at all to disparage scientific knowledge. This is to point out that the Gospel invitation is really quite broad - "Whoseover believes may not perish but have eternal life"
Skeptical attempts to scold God for not being wide enough usually end up in a much more elitist and restrictive invitation for people to know the most essential truths of human life.
I think I will stop here. I will examine your other comments latter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by onifre, posted 07-31-2009 10:56 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by onifre, posted 08-01-2009 1:01 PM jaywill has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 78 of 141 (517553)
08-01-2009 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by jaywill
08-01-2009 11:45 AM


Re: Interesting, but off-topic, questions
Hold on now. If I could be completely wrong, why not you too? In that case this sentnece:
"The means by which one chooses to get there is completely up to the individual."
could be entirely falacious. How do you know ?
I think you missed the point of me stating that you could still be wrong. If we go back to the origin of why I said that you'll find the context in which it was meant.
jawill to Stile writes:
There are some things people for one reason or another are simply not willing to believe.
Oni writes:
To say this to someone requires you to have realized that for yourself as well, does it not?
So why hold the opinion that your beliefs are right, without considering that they may equally be completely wrong, since they are just your subjective beliefs?
jaywill to me writes:
I take little pride in just have the correct information, the right data. What is important to me is how Christ is lived out in my life.
That's when I said you could still be wrong, as YOU told Stile that some people are unwilling to believe certain things. My comment was to show you have your reasoning was hypocritical.
"The means by which one chooses to get there is completely up to the individual."
could be entirely falacious. How do you know ?
It could be entirely fallacious as compared to what, though?
In my comment I allow for the individual to decide whats best for him/her, which includes your way as well. If that is wrong then it's wrong because you feel there is a single right way. And that would be entirely fallacious because you have no evidence to support it beyond your personal faith in scriptures.
What is this "jaywill, make room for that fact that you could be mistaken. In the mean time here's the truth, my opinion"?
I am not a heavy on philodophy but it seems that the concept you apply to me should also apply to you as well.
Jaywill, I think you are focusing too much on winning the debate and not so much on the words and their meaning.
You are taking the "you could be mistaken" thing way out of context. My opinion, as it has worked for me and other individuals who have given testimony as well, is that everyone is free to make up their own path to spirituality. That includes your way, and any other way people see fit. Could I be wrong, yes. But wrong as compared to what? That not everyone is free to choose their path and that there is one right way? And who decides that "one right way?"
Note: I am not saying that any of this is true either. Spirituality itself could be a completely false concept.
Hold on. I could be wrong. So I think your magnanimus apologetic could also be wrong.
Fine, but how is it wrong? I understand that you disagree with it, I knew that when I said it, but why do you disagree with it?
Do you feel there is one right way, the way you have chosen to find spirituality, and every other way is wrong?
Note I didn't say you had no basis. I said that your basis of dicribing good deeds and evil deeds is weak. It seems as arbitrary as your taste in icecream. So why not assume that you really have not done either good or bad?
It is arbitrary. It has no meaning beyond what the indiviidual gives it and accepts it to be. In other words, I can feel good about doing something bad, and vice versa.
Like I said, I reflect on it and ascribe to it what I feel it was, whether good or bad, or neutral. I don't personally need a book or a belief in god to tell me what is good and bad.
I will however, have a hard time arguing with you that I HAVE received mercy.
If you tell me that you feel you have received mercy then I believe you. There is no need to argue a posiiton that I already conceded on. That's the whole point of what I'm trying to say to you. Each individual, in my opinion, has the right to choose for him/herself their path to mercy/spirituality/etc.
Note: I am not saying that any of this is true either. Spirituality itself could be a completely false concept.
It is arbitrary for you to teach "jaywill, you could be mistaken. So then my concept that all paths are equal has to be the truth."
Note: I am not saying that any of this is true either. Spirituality itself could be a completely false concept.
There is nothing in what I'm saying that is pointing to a "truth."
Apply to yourself what you apply to me. How do you know all paths are equal? Maybe they are not.
Maybe they are not equal, but then YOU would have to show me why they are not equal, and that would require you to define ONE SINGLE TRUTH, which you cannot do.
So tenetively, all paths can lead to spirituality. And the fact that people are telling you they are spiritual and achevied it through a different path than you should be evidence that it is possible.
Unless you are saying that you don't believe people when they tell you they have acheived spirituality, at that point it's your problem as to why you don't believe them.
Anyway, I think with Christ there is a huge amount of leeway as to how a man comes to know Him.
Jaywill, this thread and our discussion is not "how one gets to know Christ," it's about spirituality, which no one has a single definition for. It means different things to different people. Your way is through Christ, fine, I accept it. But, stop preaching to me about how to "find" Christ, I don't care to do so. I am content and quite happy with my definition of spirituality.
- Oni

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by jaywill, posted 08-01-2009 11:45 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 79 of 141 (517555)
08-01-2009 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Peg
08-01-2009 3:41 AM


Re: Dichotomies
Hi, Peg.
Peg writes:
not at all. When the bible speaks of 'fleshly' things, its talking about immorality, not physical needs. there is nothing wrong with physical things.
Ah, I see: I misunderstood you. I think we agree, at least, that physical things are not all bad.
-----
Peg writes:
Also, not everything that is considered 'spiritual' is spoken of in a positive light.
In your last post, you said "spiritual" is the opposite of "immoral":
Peg, msg #62, writes:
Bluejay writes:
So, is spiritual the opposite of physical or the opposite of immoral?
it would have to be the opposite of both because the bible links fleshly things with immoral things.
Now, you are saying that "spiritual" includes both good things and bad things. If so, doesn't this mean that "spiritual" is not the opposite of "immoral"?
So, now, it sounds to me like you've said that "spiritual" is the opposite of "immoral," the opposite of "physical," the opposite of both, and the opposite of neither at different times in this discussion.
It's really getting confusing.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Peg, posted 08-01-2009 3:41 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Peg, posted 08-03-2009 4:21 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 80 of 141 (517882)
08-03-2009 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Blue Jay
08-01-2009 1:10 PM


Re: Dichotomies
Bluejay writes:
Now, you are saying that "spiritual" includes both good things and bad things. If so, doesn't this mean that "spiritual" is not the opposite of "immoral"?
yeah sorry about that, im confusing myself also now lol.
back in that post I was speaking in a different context. But the context has changed slightly. I'll see if I can put it straight...
fleshly = immorality
physical = material things
spiritual = things pertaining to unseen things. Whether the spirituality being spoken of is good or bad will depend on the context. I was thinking in terms of God, which is why I said it was the opposite of immoral.
However, i wasnt taking bad spirituality into account....i should have specified the two to begin with.
Good spiritual things pertain to God and his angels.
Bad spiritual things pertain to Satan and his demons.
Some people are only interested in physical things...they are the ones spoken of here:
A physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. However, the spiritual man examines indeed all things 1Cor 2:14-15
Other people are fleshly in that they delve into immoral things and they are spoken of here:
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, and they are fornication, uncleanness, loose conduct, idolatry, practice of spiritism, enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, contentions, divisions, sects, envies, drunken bouts, revelries, and things like these. As to these things I am forewarning YOU, the same way as I did forewarn YOU, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s kingdom. 1corinthians 5:19
i hope i've cleared that up a bit.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Blue Jay, posted 08-01-2009 1:10 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by jaywill, posted 08-04-2009 10:22 AM Peg has replied
 Message 83 by Blue Jay, posted 08-04-2009 11:26 AM Peg has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 81 of 141 (518162)
08-04-2009 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Peg
08-03-2009 4:21 AM


Re: Dichotomies
A physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. However, the spiritual man examines indeed all things 1 Cor 2:14-15
If I had a Bible that translated 1 Cor. 2:14 that way I would probably throw it in the trash immediately.
The Recovery Version translates:
"But a SOULISH man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he is not able to know [them] because they are discerned spiritually"
It is not a PHYSICAL man but a SOULISH man. That is a man dominated by the SOUL with little functioning of his spirit. (We are a three part being 1 Thess. 5:23).
A person may be very philosophical in his SOUL, very active in the mind but be adverse to praying or touching the Spirit of Christ by calling on His name to contact Him. He is SOULISH. He is dominated perhaps by a very ethical soul or very philosophical or religious SOUL. Because he will not excercise his praying organ deep in him he is ruled by his SOUL. And he cannot discern spiritual matters.
They seem like FOOLISHNESS to him. He may be very intelligent. But He has not sense of a need to pray to Christ or turn his heart to Christ and God.
It is emphatically not a PHYSICAL man there but a SOULISH man. And if I were you I would take that English "translation" and put it away for awhile get something better.
I would highly recommend the Recovery Version Bible with Footnotes as a far better study Bible. The Holy Bible Recovery Version
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Peg, posted 08-03-2009 4:21 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Blue Jay, posted 08-04-2009 11:15 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 86 by Peg, posted 08-05-2009 4:36 AM jaywill has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 82 of 141 (518168)
08-04-2009 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by jaywill
08-04-2009 10:22 AM


Tripartite Man
Hi, Jaywill.
I've been trying to think up a good response to your comments so far, but I just have no idea what to say. I share Onifre's and Stile's confusion about how it is possible for anyone to discern the difference between "spiritual" and "soulical."
However, your earlier comments seem to suggest that, in your belief, the difference can only be seen by someone who is already "spiritual," so there is apparently no hope for Onifre, Stile or even Bluejay, to understand unless they first accept that you are correct.
My father has expressed similar feelings of discernment between "spiritual" and "emotional" experiences, but I personally have never felt such a distinction: mind, emotions, intuition and all of that internal stuff appears to be coming from a single source to me.
-----
Why, in your opinion, do you think the Bible contains no direct exposition on the tripartite man concept?
It seems to me that that would be the most sensible thing to do, yet, no where is there a direct explanation of this, or any other doctrinal concept, in the scriptures. Instead, the narrative is written as if we already understand the mechanics of God's work, so those of us who do not know are forced to rely on contextual cues to reconstruct the intentions of Jesus's teachings.
The end result of this is that life-long Christians, like myself, who have spent hours studying the scriptures, and hours in discussion with others about the scriptures, still haven't the slightest idea what a basic, fundamental concept like "spirit" or "spirituality" means.
Yet, I am still expected to strive toward improving some component of my being while no consistent explanation for what that component is is forthcoming.
-----
What I have gathered from this thread so far is that I am not the only Christian who does not understand what "spirit" and "spirituality" are.
Of the three Christian respondents, one seems on the other side of a language barrier from me; the second has (unintentionally) said about four different things, and does not believe that the adjectival form of a word refers to the same concept as the noun form of the same word; and the third claims that there is a difference between "spiritual" and "soulical" experiences, but can't describe for us how they can be distinguished nor why they merit distinction. Furthermore, none of the three is in line with the teaching that I grew up with, which is also lacking in a straightforward exposition.
I am a perfectionist and a chronic worrier: to me, the most annoying part of the science that I do for a living is the ubiquitous, nerve-wrecking uncertainty. But it seems that the religious community is even more inept at this, despite the clarity and certainty its advertisements say it can provide.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by jaywill, posted 08-04-2009 10:22 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by jaywill, posted 08-04-2009 6:12 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 83 of 141 (518170)
08-04-2009 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Peg
08-03-2009 4:21 AM


Re: Dichotomies
Hi, Peg.
Peg writes:
fleshly = immorality
physical = material things
spiritual = things pertaining to unseen things. Whether the spirituality being spoken of is good or bad will depend on the context.
So, there are good and bad "spiritualities"?
Then, what is the difference between "fleshly" and "bad spiritual"?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Peg, posted 08-03-2009 4:21 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Peg, posted 08-05-2009 4:18 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 84 of 141 (518258)
08-04-2009 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Blue Jay
08-04-2009 11:15 AM


Re: Tripartite Man
Hi, Jaywill.
I've been trying to think up a good response to your comments so far, but I just have no idea what to say. I share Onifre's and Stile's confusion about how it is possible for anyone to discern the difference between "spiritual" and "soulical."
I didn't say it was easy to do so. And the New Testament also says that it is not easy to do so. That is why Hebrews says that the word of God is SHARPER than a two edged sword and is ABLE TO DO SO. The implication is that it is NOT EASY but the word of God can help.
Now look:
"For the word of God is living and operative and sharper than any two edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit and of joints and marrow; and able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Heb. 4:12)
Notice the words " PIERCING EVEN TO THE DIVIDING OF SOUL AND SPIRIT". The implication is that this division is something very deep within our being. It is not obvious. It is not easy to separate the two. The living Word of God is PENETRATING. It cuts deeply into a person's personality EVEN TO the dividing of soul and spirit.
When you read the word of God, sometimes you will come to a passage and you have the feeling that SOMEONE has been watching you. Something seems to jump off of the page and speak directly to your life. That has something to do with it. Something deep in your being is able to look within you in a way more pure, more clean and righteous, more holy and tell you about yourself. The word of God can convict you. That experience is approaching this matter of the word of God penetrating deep into your being and dividing the soul from the spirit.
However, your earlier comments seem to suggest that, in your belief, the difference can only be seen by someone who is already "spiritual," so there is apparently no hope for Onifre, Stile or even Bluejay, to understand unless they first accept that you are correct.
It is too hard for me to be totally systematic about when a person becomes spiritual. That is a hard matter.
If an unbeliever could not "be spiritual" at the moment she or he is convicted that they need Jesus in their lives then no one could become saved or enter into the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.
I am not smart enough answer this problem it scientific accuracy - "at what MOMENT does a person become spiritual?"
If you wanted to make an issue that because I cannot exactly pinpoint the nanosecond in which a person crosses the threshold to bee spiritual, I would be able to argue too much against that.
This could possibly be like trying to pinpoint the exact moment two people fell in love. It is not easy. It is on a "microscopic" level in a person's being. The Holy Spirit of God knows.
My father has expressed similar feelings of discernment between "spiritual" and "emotional" experiences, but I personally have never felt such a distinction: mind, emotions, intuition and all of that internal stuff appears to be coming from a single source to me.
You are not alone in that. Often times for the Christian it is a matter that suffering helps them to discriminate the distinction.
Watchman Nee's book The Release of the Spirit dealt extensively with this matter. You see the human spirit is "surrounded" by the soul, so to speak. And experiences that "shatter" that surrounding encasing out like "dents" in our soul life through which the spiritual then "seeps out" or is more "released".
Therefore we need not only the sharp penetrating word of God. We also need adverse situations, suffering, which aids in dividing the soul and the spirit.
Please do not think that this is an easy matter. Sometimes I view the Christian as like a hardboiled egg. The shell is stuck to the soft part of the egg. You can only peal away the sections of shell piece by piece.
1.) This has nothing to do with the destruction of the soul.
This has to do with dividing the encasing soul from around the innermost kernel of man, his human spirit which has been regenerated through the Holy Spirit.
2.) I don't know anything about the non-regenerated person discerning the soul from the spirit.
The spirit of the person who has not yet received Christ is comatose and deadened. He is aware that something is missing. He is not sure what it is. If he receives mercy from God he may open his heart that what he senses is missing has something to do with Jesus the Son of God.
3.) I am not able to pinpoint the mechanics of the exact second in which the spiritual becomes real to a person. This is on a "microscopic" level that is apparent to Jesus.
You know He says that He searches the inward parts of people on a level impossibly detailed and minute for us to imagine:
"I am He who searches the inward parts and the hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your works" (Rev. 2;23)
The description of Jesus Christ in Revelation symbolically shows a sharp two edged sword proceeding out of His mouth:
"And He had in His right hand seven stars; and out of His mouth proceeded a sharp two-edged sword; and His face shone as the sun in its power." (Rev. 1:16)
Hebrews 4:12 about the sharpt two edged sword and this picture of Jesus in Revelation with the sword coming out of His mouth both testify the same thing. When Christ speaks His words are able to penetrate deep into a man and bring to light hidden and shrouded motives, intentions, inclinations.
" ... piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit ... and able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And there is no creature that is not manifest before Him, but all things are naked and laid bare to the eyes of Him to whom we are to give our account." (Hebrews 4:12,13)
Why, in your opinion, do you think the Bible contains no direct exposition on the tripartite man concept?
I would consider First Thessalonians 5:23 as a direct reference to the tripartite man.
I would consider Hebrews 4:12 as proof that the soul and the spirit may both be non-material but are distinct components of man.
I would consider some of these passages as proof that the Apostle Paul understood a distinction between soul and spirit:
"For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful" (1 Cor. 14:14)
"What then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray also with the mind; I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing also with the mind." (v.15)
"For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of His Son ..." (Rom. 1:9)
"The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." (Rom. 8:16)
"The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you." ( 2 Tim. 4:23)
"He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)
" ... I may hear of the things concerning you, that you stand firm in one spirit, with one soul striving together along with the faith of the gospel." (Phil. 1:27)
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit." (Phil. 4:23)
"That He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be stengthened with power through His Spirit into the inner man, that Christ may make His home in your hearts through faith." (Eph. 3:16)
"The grace of our Lord Hesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen." (Gal. 6:18)
"For I had much joy and encouragement over your love, because the inward parts of the saints have been refreshed through you, brother." (Philemon 7)
" ... refresh my inward parts in Christ" (Philemon 20)
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit" (Philemon 25)
" Titus, ... his spirit has been refreshed by all of you." (2 Cor. 7:13)
"Having the same spirit of faith ..." (2 Cor. 4:13)
"Did we not walk in the same spirit? In the same steps?" ( 2 Cor. 12:18)
"In the name of the Lord Jesus, when you and my spirit have been assembled, in the power of our Lord Jesus ..." (1 Cor. 5:4,5a)
"For I on my part, though absent in the body but present in the spirit, have already judged ..." (1 Cor. 5:3)
"For even though I am absent in the flesh, yet in the spirit I am with you, rejoicing and seeing your order ..." (Col. 2:5)
All these passages and more speak of the human spirit and not the human soul. There are hundreds of passages on the human soul. I think that the the New Testament especially draws out this distinction.
I think the tabernacle with its three sections Outer Court, Holy Place, and Holy of Holies is a picture of our tripartite being of body, soul, and human spirit.
I think the saints with deeper experience helped us see the light of this matter in Scripture. Jessie Penn Lewis, Andrew Murray, Watchman Nee among others understood the soul and the spirit and helped the church to see this and come into more experience.
It seems to me that that would be the most sensible thing to do, yet, no where is there a direct explanation of this, or any other doctrinal concept, in the scriptures. Instead, the narrative is written as if we already understand the mechanics of God's work, so those of us who do not know are forced to rely on contextual cues to reconstruct the intentions of Jesus's teachings.
I don't think the Bible always follows our sense of the "sensible". I would think it was more sensible for Genesis to begin with a long theological discourse on the history of Satan before it mentions the serpent that deceived Adam and Eve. Yet Genesis does not follow my "sensible" suggestion.
It is not until latter in the Bible that we learn of an Advasary of God and an Accuser of ancient origin - and enemy of God and man.
The "sensible" sequence of the writing is not there according to my opinion.
I think the history of Joseph is most assuredly a type of that of Jesus - betrayed by his brethren because of his dreams, sold for a few pieces of silver, taken away from his brethren, falsly punished, not recognized by his kinsmen, exalted to be a great savior of the earth, etc. All this so much reminds me of Jesus that I think it would be "sensible" for the New Testament to plainly tell us that Joseph was a type of Christ. It does not.
It depends on some experienced Spirit filled students of the word of God to point out to us how the life of Joseph shadows that of Jesus Christ. The written word though did not "sensibly" come write out and tell us.
So I think we should be cautious. But our caution should be based on what the Bible teaches and implies. If it tells us that the word of God is able to penetrate and discern the human spirit from the human soul, we should consider that there must be something to that. It was not just written to fill up space on a page.
Cautiously, but reverently we can consider the experiences of Christians who may have insight into the matter.
The end result of this is that life-long Christians, like myself, who have spent hours studying the scriptures, and hours in discussion with others about the scriptures, still haven't the slightest idea what a basic, fundamental concept like "spirit" or "spirituality" means.
I am sorry that is your experience. Some people go to Theological Seminary and come out with not the slightest bit of assurance that there is a God at all. There are Atheists teaching at some promoment Seminaries.
I hear you that you feel frustrated that you don't see any basis for the spiritual. But I am afraid that I won't be deciding that our shortage of being able to help you will not cause us to decide that no such realm exists.
I am genuinely sorry when I tell some people about the salvation of Christ and they walk away puzzled and muttering that that made no sense at all. However, I am encouraged when the next person might well grasp the matter, get saved, and we see his or her life changed as a result of meeting Jesus.
Maybe someone else can help you where I simply cannot. I do have limitations. Whatever the case please do not stop exploring the Bible will a prayerful attitude, opened in your heart and willing to be changed within by Jesus.
What I have gathered from this thread so far is that I am not the only Christian who does not understand what "spirit" and "spirituality" are.
I will not be assuming that there is no spiritual realm because you fail to understand what I am trying to write here.
Of the three Christian respondents, one seems on the other side of a language barrier from me; the second has (unintentionally) said about four different things, and does not believe that the adjectival form of a word refers to the same concept as the noun form of the same word; and the third claims that there is a difference between "spiritual" and "soulical" experiences, but can't describe for us how they can be distinguished nor why they merit distinction. Furthermore, none of the three is in line with the teaching that I grew up with, which is also lacking in a straightforward exposition.
I don't share your frustration. While I don't claim to know everything about this matter, I don't share your sense of frustration at all.
Some things I experienced but had not the vocabulary to discribe until latter when I did some studying. But I recall the moment someting like a laser beam of pin point of light clicked in my being saying "Why don't you pray to God?"
I actually laughed at myself because the thought of God as a personal Person to whom one might speak about a personal situation had not occured to me in years. It seemed that the thought came into me but was not OF me.
That set off an avalanche of an eventual encounter with Jesus Christ that was more humbling and uplifting then anything that I had ever experienced before or since. I know now that that was my spirit touching the Holy Spirit. That was an instance of me experiencing tasting the spiritual realm. He is a living Person.
I am a perfectionist and a chronic worrier: to me, the most annoying part of the science that I do for a living is the ubiquitous, nerve-wrecking uncertainty. But it seems that the religious community is even more inept at this, despite the clarity and certainty its advertisements say it can provide.
I know many scientists who have no problem understanding and progressively experiencing the tripartite man. During my ten years in the Boston area I had much fellowship with Christians from MIT who were students of physics, computer science, cosmology, who freely conversed with each other about the spirit of man and the soul of man.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Blue Jay, posted 08-04-2009 11:15 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Blue Jay, posted 08-11-2009 12:35 AM jaywill has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 85 of 141 (518294)
08-05-2009 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Blue Jay
08-04-2009 11:26 AM


Re: Dichotomies
Bluejay writes:
So, there are good and bad "spiritualities"?
if its a form of spirituality that consists of practices condemned by God, then yes.
I wish i had found this quote earlier, but here is what the New Thayers Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament says is a general meaning of the word “spirit” (pneuma)
the disposition or influence which fills and governs the soul of any one.
So if spirit is a persons own disposition, would you agree that a persons disposition can be good or bad?
bluejay writes:
Then, what is the difference between "fleshly" and "bad spiritual"?
they are one in the same according to Paul in Ephesians 2:1-3. The world follows the spirit of its ruler, Satan, who encourages fleshly (immoral) desire
quote:
...though YOU were dead in YOUR trespasses and sins, in which YOU at one time walked according to the system of things of this world,
according to the ruler of the authority of the air (Satan),
the spirit (disposition) that now operates in the sons of disobedience.
Yes, among them we all at one time conducted ourselves in harmony with the desires of our flesh, doing the things willed by the flesh(immorality) and the thoughts, and we were naturally children of wrath even as the rest
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Blue Jay, posted 08-04-2009 11:26 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 86 of 141 (518296)
08-05-2009 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by jaywill
08-04-2009 10:22 AM


Re: Dichotomies
Hi Jaywill,
jaywill writes:
If I had a Bible that translated 1 Cor. 2:14 that way I would probably throw it in the trash immediately.
the KJV says 'the natural man'
a literal translation will take the original words used in the original language and translate them in a direct way. In the case here, the original words used is Greek is psykhikos and in Latin its animalis
If the RV says 'soulish' I dont see a problem with that because its derived from the greek word psykhe which, as you can see, is also a derivative of the word psykhikos. That word 'psykhe' means a living person aka 'soul'.
Im not sure what you're contesting???
jaywill writes:
It is emphatically not a PHYSICAL man there but a SOULISH man. And if I were you I would take that English "translation" and put it away for awhile get something better.
i like the NWT
it consistently renders the words in the way they were meant to be understood by the writers. I know that it is out of harmony with current doctrines & understanding, but i would rather know what the writers originally meant.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by jaywill, posted 08-04-2009 10:22 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by jaywill, posted 08-09-2009 6:26 PM Peg has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 87 of 141 (518926)
08-09-2009 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Peg
08-05-2009 4:36 AM


Re: Dichotomies
the KJV says 'the natural man'
I know that. And I suspect the NWT, influenced by Russellite theology that the physical blood is the soul of man, has a vested interest in rendering it incorrectly "the physical man".
Some Bible scholars say that every translation is also an interpretation. There may be some truth to that. The Watchtower Society wants its adherents to understand the soul of man as the physical blood of man. So they help the unfortunate along with this "translation" that the physical man is to be understood where it speaks of the soulish man.
a literal translation will take the original words used in the original language and translate them in a direct way. In the case here, the original words used is Greek is psykhikos and in Latin its animalis
The word is derived from the Greek word translated "soul" in Matthew 10:28.
"And do not fear those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." (Matt. 10:28)
This passage is one that strongly refutes Watchtower teaching that the soul is the physical blood. Christ drew a distinction BETWEEN the body and the soul here.
So to say the soulish man is the physical man is an error. Rather the soulish man should be understood as the man who is dominated by that immaterial part of his being, the soul.
Paul's reference to the Greeks seeking wisdom, in the same chapter, helps us to understand that just as the very philosophical Greeks considered the things of the Spirit of God as foolishness, so the soulish man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God.
Since man is born into this world with a deadened spiritual component - the human spirit, it stands to reason that the KJV translators would put "natural man" there. But the better translation can be found in the Recovery Version - "the soulish man".
Perhaps other English translations render it soulish man also. The physical man there is way off.
i like the NWT
it consistently renders the words in the way they were meant to be understood by the writers. I know that it is out of harmony with current doctrines & understanding, but i would rather know what the writers originally meant.
It was created specifically to promote Watchtower theology, Arian teaching, and the Arian sympathies of Charles Russell.
I do not know why the "translators" are not mentioned as to WHO they were.
Dr. Kerry S. Robichaux, I know, can be blamed for any errors in the Recovery Version. At least he puts his name behind it.
To be fair, the Recovery Version also is a purposeful translation which is FAR from pushing many incorrect current doctrines and understandings. The essence of recovering neglected truths is the focus. And the footnotes of Witness Lee are very helpful in this.
Whether the understanding is current or not is secondary. Incorrect understandings whether traditional or non-traditional are to be avoided.
Your NWT's concept of the physical man in First Corinthians 2:14 may be off the traditional understanding. But it is its incorrectness which is the issue not its novelty.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Peg, posted 08-05-2009 4:36 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Peg, posted 08-10-2009 12:08 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 89 by Peg, posted 08-10-2009 12:21 AM jaywill has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 88 of 141 (518942)
08-10-2009 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by jaywill
08-09-2009 6:26 PM


Re: Dichotomies
jaywill writes:
So to say the soulish man is the physical man is an error. Rather the soulish man should be understood as the man who is dominated by that immaterial part of his being, the soul.
i did ask my hebrew teacher about her understanding of soul and this she directed me to the biblical dictionary which defines Nefesh (soul) as:
- a living being whose life resides in the blood
- the Nefesh becomes a living being by breathing Nishnat Haim into the nostrils of its Basar (flesh- man)
- nefesh is life itself, desire, appetite, emotion and passion. - the inner being of man.
- the essential of man, sometimes stands for the man himself
So the jewish understanding is that the Nephesh is a living being, not a separate entity inside a living being. What the church's teach is a doctrine that is not based on the bible. Its there own interpretation and it is very contradictory to the bible.
For me, i believe the bible over doctrine.
jaywill writes:
"And do not fear those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." (Matt. 10:28)
This passage is one that strongly refutes Watchtower teaching that the soul is the physical blood. Christ drew a distinction BETWEEN the body and the soul here.
So to say the soulish man is the physical man is an error. Rather the soulish man should be understood as the man who is dominated by that immaterial part of his being, the soul.
Yes, i know that passage appears to be saying that, however Jesus words show that the soul can still die because he says "be in fear of him that can kill BOTH soul and body in gehenna"
How we understand this verse is that because God’s servants have the hope of a resurrection in the event of death, they have the hope of living again. For that reason Jesus could say that whoever loses his soul for the sake of me and the good news will save it.
Really, Jesus is making the distinction because while men can kill the body, they cannot kill the person for all time, because God can and will restore faithful people to life again.
quote:
I have hope toward God, which hope these men also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous. ACTS 24:15.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by jaywill, posted 08-09-2009 6:26 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by jaywill, posted 08-10-2009 11:00 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 89 of 141 (518943)
08-10-2009 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by jaywill
08-09-2009 6:26 PM


Re: Dichotomies
jaywill writes:
It was created specifically to promote Watchtower theology, Arian teaching, and the Arian sympathies of Charles Russell.
I do not know why the "translators" are not mentioned as to WHO they were.
Jesus supported and promoted arian teachings. Christians believed Jesus words and promoted the same teachings. If Jesus and the Apostles believed the Hebrew Scriptures, then why shouldn't we?
with regard to the translators of the NWT, Since they have chosen to remain anonymous, the translation should be appraised on its own merits. If you look at all the articles and books written by the Watchtower society, you'll see that everything is anonymous. This is because no one person is responsible for writing. There is a whole committee of writers who all participate in developing the material they publish.
The work is considered Gods work, so no writer takes any credit for the work they do. They dont even take payment for their work...everything is voluntary...that goes for the translation committee who put the books and articles into foreign languages too.
jaywill writes:
Your NWT's concept of the physical man in First Corinthians 2:14 may be of the traditional understanding. But it is its incorrectness which is the issue not its novelty.
If you agree that it is of the traditional understanding, what makes it incorrect?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by jaywill, posted 08-09-2009 6:26 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jaywill, posted 08-10-2009 7:52 AM Peg has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 90 of 141 (518976)
08-10-2009 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Peg
08-10-2009 12:21 AM


Re: Dichotomies
That last post of mine had a typo. I meant that the NWT's "physical man" was off the beaten path. But my problem with it is that it is not right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Peg, posted 08-10-2009 12:21 AM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024