Heart - a faculty of the mind?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

T:And yes I do think we are the temples of God.

That is what the scripture says.

Know ye not?

Mark :-)

p:By "temple" you mean "religious building"?

T:That is a very imature and childish argument Brother.

Please explain what you think the "temple" is?

It's neither "immature" nor "childish" nor "mocking," (as you put in your former post). It's an illustration that you are not following the methodology you yourself laid out. I've explained this in the post previous to this one, so won't repeat myself, but will just ask if you understand and agree with the explanation.

I'm also a bit perplexed as to why you're taking this the way you are. I have no ill intent against your person. I simply disagree with something you said. I'm arguing against your idea. There's nothing personal involved. I've tried to be as respectful as I can be to you personally.

Problem is pnat, when you let mockery through once, then you will find that every comment you make will be treated with that spirit assumed, when you start then joining in with others that mock on a regular basis, you have joined that club.

----------------

Temple here is a figurative/spiritual/literal term.

Temple means a place where the Holy Spirit dwells.

That can be a building or that can be a body.

Heart is a figurative/spiritual/literal term.

It can mean many things, but one of those meanings is "heart", as in the organ heart...

Do you not think it odd that the plainest meaning of the word is the one that is first rejected?

That it has to go through a strange trip through the SOP to be translated into the word "mind" to be accepted?

And that this strange trip is then lauded as the "definitive" meaning?

The Sunday keepers do that with the Sabbath.

Theistic Evolutionists do that with Genesis.

And here we have "bible believing" Christians doing that with the term heart.

Isn't it strange that the word "heart" used 765 times in the bible, hardly ever actually means "heart" according to some?

It is not my usage of the word that is in question here, it is the usage of those that refuse to use it in its primary sense that have the issue here.

The argument that "heart" does not mean "heart" is so strange...

But it is really based on a fundamental assumption that we are all "brain".

That assumption is incorrect and whilst that assumption is in place, a trip to the gates of Heaven would not persuade a man...

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Where do you find that in the Bible Pnat?

Please supply a text detailing the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the OT.

Not the "outpouring" of the Holy Spirit, but the indwelling in the OT.

Mark :-)

There are various places in Scripture which speak of those in the OT being filled with the Spirit. For example:

Quote:

30 And Moses said to the children of Israel, "See, the Lord has called by name Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah; 31 "and He has filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom and understanding, in knowledge and all manner of workmanship,

Exodus 35:30-31

Also the following makes the point:

Quote:

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.(Romans 8:9)

That is not what I asked my friend. :-)

Where in the OT does it mention the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

Where does it say in the OT that anyone had the Spirit "dwelling in them"?

[Twilight]

Quote:

Pnat, if you want to define when a text is literal/spiritual/figurative, then please supply your own personal method. You again are pulling a position down without stating your own.

Do you have a method you use?

--------------

I would also like to insist you share what you think the temple is my friend.

Criticising anothers position without sharing your own is very impolite...

Mark :-)

A discussion is more pleasant if you answer the questions asked of you, before going off into some other area. I asked you if you agreed with what I said.

Quote:

What you said was that you take things a certain way because "That's what the Bible says." What Richard said is that one takes things literally unless common sense dictates otherwise (not the words he used, but the idea). You're actually doing what Richard said, not what you said.

I'm asking if you agree with this.

Regarding my position, I think what Richard said is fine.

Pnat, you bought the subject of the usage of the word "temple" up and insisted my usage was incorrect in line with my usage of the heart.

I am now asking you to clarify your own view.

Because to respond to you, I need to understand your position.

Without it discussion is not possible.

What do you think the temple is?

[Twilight]

Further to this question Pnat:

Where does it say in the OT that anyone had the Spirit "dwelling in them"?

Here are the NT instances:

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

1Cr 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

1Jo 4:13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

[pnattmbtc]

Problem is pnat, when you let mockery through once, then you will find that every comment you make will be treated with that spirit assumed, when you start then joining in with others that mock on a regular basis, you have joined that club.

[karl]

Mark, although I just love a lot of the things you have written, I've got to agree with pnattmbtc that the mind is where we experience, process, relate, believe, receive. Certainly there are responses by our hearts to things we experience, but our awareness of what we experience, and even our awareness of our physiological responses to those experiences, happens in our minds.

Central communication and operational hub.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Problem is pnat, when you let mockery through once, then you will find that every comment you make will be treated with that spirit assumed, when you start then joining in with others that mock on a regular basis, you have joined that club.

There was no mockery involved, Twilight. You're wrong about this. I'm sorry you read what I've written this way.

You've taken the position that things should be taken literally because "That's what the Bible says." I chose an example, "temple," to demonstrate that your position doesn't work. Why are you understanding this as mockery? I don't understand this.

Quote:

Temple here is a figurative/spiritual/literal term.

How do you know? How do you know it's not literal?

Quote:

Temple means a place where the Holy Spirit dwells.

That can be a building or that can be a body.

A temple is a religious building. That's what it means, literally. It can be used figuratively to mean other things, as many other words can, including "heart."

Quote:

Heart is a figurative/spiritual/literal term.

It can mean many things, but one of those meanings is "heart", as in the organ heart...

The same is true of "temple."

Quote:

Do you not think it odd that the plainest meaning of the word is the one that is first rejected?

If it makes sense to do so. This is precisely where the disagreement lies, and the point I've been trying to make. In your opinion, it makes sense to treat "heart" this way, but not "temple." No one else agrees with you, which is fine. My point is that what is common sense to one person (e.g., everyone else view that common sense dictates that it's not the literal heart being spoken of) is not to another (e.g., you don't see that common sense negates the possibility that "heart" is speaking of the physical heart in the chest).

So your stated methodology, that you believe this because "this is what the Bible says," is inadequate. In reality, you to do the same thing that Richard laid out, which is the same thing that everybody does, which is to use their common sense, or judgment, to determine what should be taken literally and what should be taken figuratively. Our methodology is no different. What's different is what our common sense dictates.

Quote:

That it has to go through a strange trip through the SOP to be translated into the word "mind" to be accepted?

Saying "heart" means "mind" is hardly strange.

Quote:

And that this strange trip is then lauded as the "definitive" meaning?

Nobody else even needs the SOP to know what "heart" means. This was just an attempt to show you from an inspired source what everyone else already understood.

Quote:

The Sunday keepers do that with the Sabbath.

Theistic Evolutionists do that with Genesis.

And here we have "bible believing" Christians doing that with the term heart.

This isn't what's happening. What's happening is that every one else sees that it makes as much sense to understand "heart" in a non-figurative was as it makes to understand "temple" in this way.

Quote:

Isn't it strange that the word "heart" used 765 times in the bible, hardly ever actually means "heart" according to some?

"Temple" often doesn't actually mean "temple" either.

Quote:

It is not my usage of the word that is in question here, it is the usage of those that refuse to use it in its primary sense that have the issue here.

IMO, it's the application of common sense that's the issue.

Quote:

The argument that "heart" does not mean "heart" is so strange...

The argument that "temple" doesn't mean "temple" is no less strange.

Quote:

But it is really based on a fundamental assumption that we are all "brain".

No it's not. This is misapplying what others have said. What's being said is that the brain includes aspects such as affections/motives/desires/emotions, not just the intellectual activities.

Quote:

That assumption is incorrect and whilst that assumption is in place, a trip to the gates of Heaven would not persuade a man...

No one is making this assumption.

Then you have misunderstood my position.

My view is this:

1. Take the word literally first unless you have a strong reason not to.

2. That reason must be supplied by scripture.

--------------

So with Genesis, we have on this basis reason to state that God created the earth in 7 days.

Now if we do not do this, then we cannot state Genesis is literal.

--------------

With the heart, it is the same.

I started with Jesus' teaching on the heart and it made perfect sense.

Was there any biblical reason to assume it could not be applied literally?

No.

Was there any biblical reason to assume that the heart has emotional function?

Yes.

Was there any biblical reason to assume this was the seat of the Holy Spirit?

Yes.

Was there any biblical reason to assume that the heart meant "mind"?

No.

Was there any biblical reason to assume the the mind was the seat of the Holy Spirit?

No.

---------------

But note, what yourself and the others have to do, to make out this is not the correct way to examine the issue.

You have to build your argument on two assumptions, neither of which are derived from scripture or good scriptural exposition:

1. Take the word figuratively no matter what.

2. This is because the heart is just a pump/muscle and we "know" that.

---------------

This is what I have been challenging.

These two key assumptions.

Your whole argument is built on these two assumptions.

And they are arguments we should not use, as they are not the way we examine any other doctrine.

But none of you seem to comprehend this simple point?

You make one rule for establishing creation week, and throw that rule away when we talk about the heart!!!

Mark :-)

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Then you have misunderstood my position.

My view is this:

1. Take the word literally first unless you have a strong reason not to.

2. That reason must be supplied by scripture.

I think this is the same thing Richard said, just worded slightly differently. Do you agree?

Quote:

So with Genesis, we have on this basis reason to state that God created the earth in 7 days.

Now if we do not do this, then we cannot state Genesis is literal.

With the heart, it is the same.

We disagree regarding this. I think what Tom wrote was very well stated, and agree with his points.

Quote:

I started with Jesus' teaching on the heart and it made perfect sense.

Was there any biblical reason to assume it could not be applied literally?

No.

We disagree. The teachings of the heart, IMO, are not in any way dependent upon the physical location of the heart, nor is it dealing with the blood-pumping muscle. Rather it's dealing with the seat of our emotions and affections, where a man does his deepest thinking; the "inner" part of a man.

Quote:

Was there any biblical reason to assume that the heart has emotional function?

Yes.

I agree.

Quote:

Was there any biblical reason to assume this was the seat of the Holy Spirit?

Yes.

I don't know what the means.

Quote:

Was there any biblical reason to assume that the heart meant "mind"?

No.

It doesn't mean "mind," agreed, but the location of the items to which "heart" applies (i.e., things like affections, emotions, desires, motives) are in the head region, as opposed to the chest region. Again, what Tom wrote is I think right to the point.

Quote:

Was there any biblical reason to assume the the mind was the seat of the Holy Spirit?

No.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but IMO the Holy Spirit is definitely working with our minds, enabling us to perceive and understand spiritual truth, and I think this is fundamental; without His doing this, we couldn't be born again, for example.

Quote:

But note, what yourself and the others have to do, to make out this is not the correct way to examine the issue.

It doesn't sound to me like there's any difference in methodology here, just the application of the methodology. Everyone is saying we should take the Bible as it reads, unless there is strong reason not to. Everyone else is seeing a strong reason not to in regards to "heart" and "kidneys," so it is at this point that we are differing.

[qutoe]

You have to build your argument on two assumptions, neither of which are derived from scripture or good scriptural exposition:

1. Take the word figuratively no matter what.

2. This is because the heart is just a pump/muscle and we "know" that.

[teresaq]

And yes I do think we are the temples of God.

That is what the scripture says.

[Twilight]

Mark, although I just love a lot of the things you have written, I've got to agree with pnattmbtc that the mind is where we experience, process, relate, believe, receive. Certainly there are responses by our hearts to things we experience, but our awareness of what we experience, and even our awareness of our physiological responses to those experiences, happens in our minds.

Central communication and operational hub.

My view Karl, is that the mind is the processor.

But the heart is the hard drive where the emotions/desires/inclinations are stored.

God changes the emotions/desires/inclinations, and the mind follows. :-)

You see, WE cannot change the heart. God has to do that and He said He would.

-----------------

We keep working on the mind, but we find in difficult situations, that the flesh rises up and overpowers us.

Why?

Because the heart itself has not been changed, the emotions/desires/inclinations have not been changed.

So we do a good job of pretending we have arrived, until we are put under pressure.

Then the behaviour is often no different to that of a non-christian.

Anyone can be a christian in a controlled environment, only a few can be a christian in the fiery furnace.

-----------------

But how does God change the heart?

The Holy Spirit moves in and "re-writes" or "re-programmes" the heart, the emotions/desires/inclinations.

Only God can do that.

It takes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to rewrite the heart:

Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them].

Jer 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Please note, it is the indwelling of the Spirit, that writes the law on our hearts, that causes us to "know" God.

Mark :-)

[karl]

My view Karl, is that the mind is the processor.

But the heart is the hard drive where the emotions/desires/inclinations are stored.

God changes the emotions/desires/inclinations, and the mind follows. :-)

I have followed your argument carefully for a lot of pages.

I don't believe the emotions/desires/inclinations dwell anywhere but in the mind. A decorticate human has no emotions/desires/inclinations. A decorticate human is a vegetable. I have seen this condition. I know what I'm talking about from first-hand observation.

[Twilight]

Quote:

Then you have misunderstood my position.

My view is this:

1. Take the word literally first unless you have a strong reason not to.

2. That reason must be supplied by scripture.

I think this is the same thing Richard said, just worded slightly differently. Do you agree?

Quote:

So with Genesis, we have on this basis reason to state that God created the earth in 7 days.

Now if we do not do this, then we cannot state Genesis is literal.

With the heart, it is the same.

We disagree regarding this. I think what Tom wrote was very well stated, and agree with his points.

Quote:

I started with Jesus' teaching on the heart and it made perfect sense.

Was there any biblical reason to assume it could not be applied literally?

No.

We disagree. The teachings of the heart, IMO, are not in any way dependent upon the physical location of the heart, nor is it dealing with the blood-pumping muscle. Rather it's dealing with the seat of our emotions and affections, where a man does his deepest thinking; the "inner" part of a man.

Quote:

Was there any biblical reason to assume that the heart has emotional function?

Yes.

I agree.

Quote:

Was there any biblical reason to assume this was the seat of the Holy Spirit?

Yes.

I don't know what the means.

Quote:

Was there any biblical reason to assume that the heart meant "mind"?

No.

It doesn't mean "mind," agreed, but the location of the items to which "heart" applies (i.e., things like affections, emotions, desires, motives) are in the head region, as opposed to the chest region. Again, what Tom wrote is I think right to the point.

Quote:

Was there any biblical reason to assume the the mind was the seat of the Holy Spirit?

No.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but IMO the Holy Spirit is definitely working with our minds, enabling us to perceive and understand spiritual truth, and I think this is fundamental; without His doing this, we couldn't be born again, for example.

Quote:

But note, what yourself and the others have to do, to make out this is not the correct way to examine the issue.

It doesn't sound to me like there's any difference in methodology here, just the application of the methodology. Everyone is saying we should take the Bible as it reads, unless there is strong reason not to. Everyone else is seeing a strong reason not to in regards to "heart" and "kidneys," so it is at this point that we are differing.

[qutoe]

You have to build your argument on two assumptions, neither of which are derived from scripture or good scriptural exposition:

1. Take the word figuratively no matter what.

2. This is because the heart is just a pump/muscle and we "know" that.

[Twilight]

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

not literally discerned. literally discerned means the natural man is understanding according to the carnal (worldly) nature, just like nicodemus and,

Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Joh 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

So how then is it that you understanding spiritual things, do not understand about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit Teresa?

1Cr 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Please explain why the above is not literal.

From the bible alone.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

My view Karl, is that the mind is the processor.

But the heart is the hard drive where the emotions/desires/inclinations are stored.

God changes the emotions/desires/inclinations, and the mind follows. :-)

I have followed your argument carefully for a lot of pages.

I don't believe the emotions/desires/inclinations dwell anywhere but in the mind. A decorticate human has no emotions/desires/inclinations. A decorticate human is a vegetable. I have seen this condition. I know what I'm talking about from first-hand observation.

The thoughts are indeed in the mind, but the emotions and desires etc, where do you experience them Karl?

In your mind?

Or in your body and heart?

Ever been betrayed?

Feels like someone cutting open your stomach.

Every lost someone?

Feels like you heart has broken.

Those experiences do not happen in my mind.

I might measure them and be aware of them in my mind, but that is not where they are experienced.

Mark :-)

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

some people have phantom limb experiences where they have no hand, but they feel like someone is touching their hand...that "feeling" is being experienced in the mind.

this thread is so dead. Mark, it seems like you're arguing for argument's sake, not for any good reason. People have given you all sorts of answers and you reject them. For the life of me, I can't think of any reason why you continue this charade.

[Woody]

some people have phantom limb experiences where they have no hand, but they feel like someone is touching their hand...that "feeling" is being experienced in the mind.

this thread is so dead. Mark, it seems like you're arguing for argument's sake, not for any good reason. People have given you all sorts of answers and you reject them. For the life of me, I can't think of any reason why you continue this charade.

Ha Ha. Good one Pam. I think he is having phantom heart pains.

[karl]

Ever been betrayed?

Feels like someone cutting open your stomach.

Every lost someone?

Feels like you heart has broken.

Those experiences do not happen in my mind.

I might measure them and be aware of them in my mind, but that is not where they are experienced.

Mark :-)

Actually the EXPERIENCES happen in your mind, even though the stimulus may be made elsewhere in your body. If we remove the sensory part of your brain you will experience nothing. If we remove enough of your brain you will simply die.

A brain surgeon can open your brain and use an electric probe to stimulate nerve endings. If he touches the right spot, you can remember in living color sight, sound, smell and tactile/visceral sensations things that have happened long ago. It was all experienced in your mind and that experience was stored there.

All sensory nerves end in your brain except for reflex arcs which connect in your spinal column and send a motor message back to the reflex muscle while another nerve carries the impulse (you guessed it) to your brain.

Whatever you experience, you experience in your brain. A cut on your toe is experienced in your brain, If we destroy the part of your brain that experiences cuts on the toe, you will notice no sensation in your toe when I take a knife to your toe. You will only be aware that something has happened when you see the cut. If we destroy the optical part of your brain, you won't even see the cut. Your eyes will experience nothing.

Everything you experience, you experience in your brain. And I use the terms "brain" and "mind" interchangeably here even though there are some spiritual qualities of "mind" that transcend "brain." But that is another issue we need to take up with the evolutionists.

[pnattmbtc]

I was going to make this same point, that everything we experience, we experience in the mind.

[Twilight]

some people have phantom limb experiences where they have no hand, but they feel like someone is touching their hand...that "feeling" is being experienced in the mind.

this thread is so dead. Mark, it seems like you're arguing for argument's sake, not for any good reason. People have given you all sorts of answers and you reject them. For the life of me, I can't think of any reason why you continue this charade.

Sister, maybe you should treat others with the respect you so desire to have yourself?

Calling this discussion a "charade" is insulting.

How would you respond if I accused your post of being a "charade" that served no useful purpose?

Mark

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

some people have phantom limb experiences where they have no hand, but they feel like someone is touching their hand...that "feeling" is being experienced in the mind.

this thread is so dead. Mark, it seems like you're arguing for argument's sake, not for any good reason. People have given you all sorts of answers and you reject them. For the life of me, I can't think of any reason why you continue this charade.

Ha Ha. Good one Pam. I think he is having phantom heart pains.

Your posts are full of spite and mockery woody.

Because of that your opinion holds no weight with me in these matters.

As you are not engaging in the discussion just seeking to pull others down, I would ask you to please leave this discussion and take your negative attitude elsewhere.

Mark

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Ever been betrayed?

Feels like someone cutting open your stomach.

Every lost someone?

Feels like you heart has broken.

Those experiences do not happen in my mind.

I might measure them and be aware of them in my mind, but that is not where they are experienced.

Mark :-)

Actually the EXPERIENCES happen in your mind, even though the stimulus may be made elsewhere in your body. If we remove the sensory part of your brain you will experience nothing. If we remove enough of your brain you will simply die.

A brain surgeon can open your brain and use an electric probe to stimulate nerve endings. If he touches the right spot, you can remember in living color sight, sound, smell and tactile/visceral sensations things that have happened long ago. It was all experienced in your mind and that experience was stored there.

All sensory nerves end in your brain except for reflex arcs which connect in your spinal column and send a motor message back to the reflex muscle while another nerve carries the impulse (you guessed it) to your brain.

Whatever you experience, you experience in your brain. A cut on your toe is experienced in your brain, If we destroy the part of your brain that experiences cuts on the toe, you will notice no sensation in your toe when I take a knife to your toe. You will only be aware that something has happened when you see the cut. If we destroy the optical part of your brain, you won't even see the cut. Your eyes will experience nothing.

Everything you experience, you experience in your brain. And I use the terms "brain" and "mind" interchangeably here even though there are some spiritual qualities of "mind" that transcend "brain." But that is another issue we need to take up with the evolutionists.

Are you absolutely sure that modern science fully understands all the functions of the human body Karl?

That it understands what the Creator did and did not do?

Because your authority for your argument here, is based on that assumption it seems?

And if science shows that this is not the case, will you consider that as your new authority on the matter?

Brother, these are not matters that we can "comprehend" because we run them through the logic that the world supplies.

These matters have to be run through the bible and through prayerful dependence on the Holy Spirit opening them up to us.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

I was going to make this same point, that everything we experience, we experience in the mind.

So what is the "body is a temple" pnat?

You have still not answered my question.

Mark :-)

[karl]

Feels like someone cutting open your stomach.

Every lost someone?

Feels like you heart has broken.

Those experiences do not happen in my mind.

I might measure them and be aware of them in my mind, but that is not where they are experienced.

.....

Are you absolutely sure that modern science fully understands all the functions of the human body Karl?

That it understands what the Creator did and did not do?

Because your authority for your argument here, is based on that assumption it seems?

And if science shows that this is not the case, will you consider that as your new authority on the matter?

Brother, these are not matters that we can "comprehend" because we run them through the logic that the world supplies.

These matters have to be run through the bible and through prayerful dependence on the Holy Spirit opening them up to us.

Mark :-)

OK, I accept your argument. But look at what you are saying above about experiencing things in your gut. This is based on using your senses the same way science is.

I'm OK with accepting the Bible terminology as is and saying, by faith, that we can't figure out exactly what it means. I do think going to the original language is probably a good idea, though.

Now, what is your point from there?

There's got to be some payoff for all this verbiage.

Do you want to bypass the mind and go straight to the senses? EGW warns us that this is a BAD idea. The body is to be under control of the reason (mind.)

[Woody]

Hey Mark ... according to you ... I'm going to Hell. So, why would you pay any attention to me anyways? I have a lot to live up to according to your low expectations of me.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Feels like someone cutting open your stomach.

Every lost someone?

Feels like you heart has broken.

Those experiences do not happen in my mind.

I might measure them and be aware of them in my mind, but that is not where they are experienced.

.....

Are you absolutely sure that modern science fully understands all the functions of the human body Karl?

That it understands what the Creator did and did not do?

Because your authority for your argument here, is based on that assumption it seems?

And if science shows that this is not the case, will you consider that as your new authority on the matter?

Brother, these are not matters that we can "comprehend" because we run them through the logic that the world supplies.

These matters have to be run through the bible and through prayerful dependence on the Holy Spirit opening them up to us.

Mark :-)

OK, I accept your argument. But look at what you are saying above about experiencing things in your gut. This is based on using your senses the same way science is.

I'm OK with accepting the Bible terminology as is and saying, by faith, that we can't figure out exactly what it means. I do think going to the original language is probably a good idea, though.

Now, what is your point from there?

There's got to be some payoff for all this verbiage.

Do you want to bypass the mind and go straight to the senses? EGW warns us that this is a BAD idea. The body is to be under control of the reason (mind.)

My argument is simple, I think the heart plays a role in our emotions and desires, I have derived that from the scripture.

I also not that it is the "heart" that God works on, and that is where the Holy Spirit does a lot of His work (He works on heart and mind).

But the real underlying thought here, is to encourage others to have a fresh look at the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

You may not think it is the physical heart that is the "heart" in scripture, that is fine, it is never a test as far as I am concerned.

But what is a test, is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as genuine Christianity is impossible without that.

Many have that experience, but could not explain it from scripture. Whilst many have "doctrine" and confuse that with the experience of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

That is what I am trying to do.

To get people to think about that.

Unfortunately, they all get hung up on the heart meaning "heart" and want to argue that it does not mean "heart". :-)

But I do sense the Spirit working in you brother, so do not be discouraged when a brother does not agree on every line with you, but find the parts where they do agree and concentrate there.

Spokes of a wheel.

As we each travel down our spoke we get closer to the centre and closer to each other.

This will happen spiritually and will happen doctrinally.

Mark :-)