Heart - a faculty of the mind?

[Guest]

I know it doesn't happen often Tom, but I agree.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

At least that's what my gut tells me.

Cute.

[Tom Wetmore]

Cool! Common ground... grounds for unity...

[Twilight]

"The words "A new heart will I give you" mean, "A new mind will I give you." This change of heart is always attended by a clear conception of Christian duty, an understanding of truth. The clearness of our views of truth will be proportionate to our understanding of the Word of God. He who gives the Scriptures close, prayerful attention will gain clear comprehension and sound judgment, as if in turning to God he had reached a higher grade of intelligence." -RH, Nov 10, 1904. {1MCP 95.1}

Mark, so let me get this straight. You're thinking that Ellen White is saying this is the only text in the Bible where heart means mind. And that all the rest of them mean something other than mind?

Give me a break.

All the texts you use where it says heart and mind in the same sentence, is just referring to the same thing using two different words interchangably. There are many many scriptures that do the same thing using other words.

It appears to me that "You think with the heart muscle somehow" is just what you are determined to believe, no matter what. So go ahead. I don't suppose it will cause you to be lost.

So which is it Richard.

The heart means "mind"?

Or the heart means "whole being"?

I have shown you another statement where heart means "something else".

The problem here, is that there is usage of Ellen Whites writings, that is incorrect.

SOP is not the basis for doctrine.

The above should show why.

Ellen White stated many things in many ways, using the same language as I have shown.

So we cannot use "one statement" ignore all the others and "prove the bible".

I believe you have condemned this yourself in the past?

Are you no longer holding to that "rule"?

Mark

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Indeed I have.

She is quoting from:

Eze 36:26

Having been aware of the “new heart” means “new mind” statement could you clarify your original statement regarding what the SOP “never stated once”

Originally Posted By: Twilight

It is never stated once in the bible or SOP that the "heart" is a faculty of the mind, as far as I have been able to discover.

[/quote']

You will note that the quote you refer to is not referring to "faculty" in any way.

Did you see the other quote where Ellen White refers to the "whole being", as being the "heart".

To state that heart means "faculty" of the mind, and that Ellen White represented that position, without one statement to connect the three words together is a poor use of the SOP.

Ellen white used the words faculty, mind and heart throughout all her writings and I am not aware of her ever connecting the heart to the mind as a "faculty".

Mark

[Twilight]

Question:

If we are going to "strait jacket" the SOP, then which of these is correct:

Which one is it?

A New Heart Means a New Mind . --The words "A new heart will I give you" mean, "A new mind will I give you."

When Jesus speaks of the new heart , He means the mind, the life, the whole being.

If you want to use the first statement, then what are you going to do with the second?

Ellen White was not always "exact" with her usage of words.

So to use the first and ignore the second is very very poor "reasoning".

The question is, how can you now reconcile the two?

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

Please also note, no one has yet provided one text or statement to show that the "heart is a faculty of the mind", or that the Holy Spirit dwells in the "mind".

Please also note the bible has been a most unwelcome visitor to this discussion so far...

Mark

[Twilight]

heart

soul

might

mind

strength

understanding

it looks like the bible writers were trying to convey a thought, not a word.

they were using figurative language to get an idea, a concept, across to us.

So you are no longer insisting on a literal interpretation of the word "mind" then Teresa?

Mark

[Twilight]

So, metaphorical for this specific expression, but not for the whole idea of the heart? As with the quote from EGW, you just pick and choose what suits your theory and change the rules for what doesn't fit... You need your kidney's examined, metaphorically speaking of course... At least that's what my gut tells me.

The extent to which you have taken this is very pataphoric.

Tom

So are you making the position that "hardened heart" is a metaphor for the mind?

But then stating I should not make the position that "hardened heart" is a metaphor for the heart?

Mark :-)

[Guest]

Question:

If we are going to "strait jacket" the SOP, then which of these is correct:

Which one is it?

A New Heart Means a New Mind . --The words "A new heart will I give you" mean, "A new mind will I give you."

When Jesus speaks of the new heart , He means the mind, the life, the whole being.

If you want to use the first statement, then what are you going to do with the second?

Ellen White was not always "exact" with her usage of words.

So to use the first and ignore the second is very very poor "reasoning".

The question is, how can you now reconcile the two?

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

Please also note, no one has yet provided one text or statement to show that the "heart is a faculty of the mind", or that the Holy Spirit dwells in the "mind".

Please also note the bible has been a most unwelcome visitor to this discussion so far...

Mark

She's saying the same thing in both quotes. The heart is the mind, the life, the whole being. Think about it, without your mind, what have you got? Nothing! If you can't think, then you don't even know you exist! It's as plain as the nose on your face, but you refuse to see it. Also, I have given you a Bible text that says the same thing. "As he thinketh in his heart, so is he".

This tells you that whatever it is that you think with, that is what scripture is referring to when it says heart. It doesn't matter if you know where your mind is or not. Even if you think it is in your kidneys. The heart means the thinker. The thing you think with. Now in our modern age, we know that you think with the mind. And we know where the mind is. They didn't know where the thinker was back in Bible times. They thought it was in the center of you. They thought it was in your bowels. Hence the texts referring to your kidneys, and your bowels. You only have one organ that you think with Mark, not two. ONE.

And as he thinketh in his heart (the thinker) so is he.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Question:

If we are going to "strait jacket" the SOP, then which of these is correct:

Which one is it?

A New Heart Means a New Mind . --The words "A new heart will I give you" mean, "A new mind will I give you."

When Jesus speaks of the new heart , He means the mind, the life, the whole being.

If you want to use the first statement, then what are you going to do with the second?

Ellen White was not always "exact" with her usage of words.

So to use the first and ignore the second is very very poor "reasoning".

The question is, how can you now reconcile the two?

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

Please also note, no one has yet provided one text or statement to show that the "heart is a faculty of the mind", or that the Holy Spirit dwells in the "mind".

Please also note the bible has been a most unwelcome visitor to this discussion so far...

Mark

She's saying the same thing in both quotes. The heart is the mind, the life, the whole being. Think about it, without your mind, what have you got? Nothing! If you can't think, then you don't even know you exist! It's as plain as the nose on your face, but you refuse to see it. Also, I have given you a Bible text that says the same thing. "As he thinketh in his heart, so is he".

This tells you that whatever it is that you think with, that is what scripture is referring to when it says heart. It doesn't matter if you know where your mind is or not. Even if you think it is in your kidneys. The heart means the thinker. The thing you think with. Now in our modern age, we know that you think with the mind. And we know where the mind is. They didn't know where the thinker was back in Bible times. They thought it was in the center of you. They thought it was in your bowels. Hence the texts referring to your kidneys, and your bowels. You only have one organ that you think with Mark, not two. ONE.

And as he thinketh in his heart (the thinker) so is he.

Hang on a minute Richard.

Earlier you were saying that the "heart" specifically means "mind".

And when the first quote was rolled out, you made out that it was totally "conclusive".

Are you now changing your position and saying "heart" means more than just the "brain" or "mind"?

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

Please note, I am not saying we do not "think" with our mind.

I am saying our "thoughts" in our "mind" are driven by the emotions, desires and lusts in our "heart".

That is how the above text fits into this.

When it says the "heart thinketh", it is referring to the driving force of thoughts, the "source" of thoughts.

The hebrews used the term heart to describe the motives of the man, which were expressed in their thoughts.

This is the point I am trying to make.

And I quote Jesus:

Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

Luk 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

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

Now I do not ask you just to accept this Richard, but I do ask for respect for my view, if no one can show me a good solid reason for not holding it.

And so far, no one has.

All people have done is present their own assumed position and proof texted that position from SOP.

Do you know one of the biggest problems amongst Adventists?

A lack of liberty.

If someone does not agree with you.

Cut them down...

Hack them to death...

Look at this thread and others, a whisper and thread of mockery throughout, why?

Ye are yet carnal...

And we wonder why the gospel has not gone to the world?

Mark :-/

[Guest]

Read my post again. I have not changed my position. The word heart is referring specifically the mind. Every text you just quoted is referring to the mind. I think where you are getting confused is that you think your emotions, your desires, your lust etc. is somehow separate from the mind. But all of those things reside in the mind, and the mind only. There is no other part of your body that feels emotions, or has lust. It all centers in the mind. The mind is the citadel. Without your mind, you don't know if you're happy or sad, or lustful. You don't know anything without the mind.

[Tom Wetmore]

...Now in our modern age, we know that you think with the mind. And we know where the mind is. They didn't know where the thinker was back in Bible times. They thought it was in the center of you. They thought it was in your bowels. Hence the texts referring to your kidneys, and your bowels...

Not only did the ancients not have a good idea where thoughts and emotions originated, they had little or no understanding of the brain or nervous system. In fact the Egyptians considered the brain to be so useless that it was extracted from the skull and discarded in the embalming process while other organs were preserved for mummification and the afterlife. They considered the heart to be the most important organ.

The Greeks likewise had very little understanding of the brain and its functions. Aristotle (335 BC) claimed that the organ of thought and sensation was the heart and that the brain was merely a radiator designed to cool it. This reconfirmed ancient Greek wisdom that the heart was the true seat of intelligence which had been challenged 85 years before Aristotle by the early Greek physician, Alcmaeon, who determined that it was the brain and not the heart that was the center of thinking and sensation.

The influence of those two great cultures on the Biblical writers cannot be ignored or discounted. Those cultures greatly shaped the thinking and language of the Biblical writers. (Israelites in Egypt for 400 years, and Moses educated in the schools of Egypt...)

Beyond the confusion and ignorance of the ancients, any progress on brain research halted during the middle ages (1100-1500) since the Church banned dissection and the study of human anatomy. The development of any scientific idea had to pass through that religious filter which relied on the ideas of the ancients reflected in Scripture. It really was not until the mid to late 19th century (EGW's time) that medical science even began to understand anything more about the brain and its functions.

[Woody]

It would seem we are reverting backwards in knowledge to think that the heart has the reasoning abilities of the mind.

That would be what Satan would have us to think. Jesus was clear in His teachings.

"We are to discard Jesus' teaching?

Who told you that?"

:-)

[pnattmbtc]

Very interesting, Tom.

[pnattmbtc]

Now I do not ask you just to accept this Richard, but I do ask for respect for my view, if no one can show me a good solid reason for not holding it.

And so far, no one has.

Many people have.

What you would accept as a good, solid reason for not holding your idea? I don't see what would be more conclusive than the statement that "a new heart means a new mind." I thought "the brain is the citadel of the being" and "the heart is the citadel of the being" was already conclusive, but couldn't believe it when this other quote was found, which was saying, word for word, the same thing I had been saying.

Tom made some good points.

What I really don't understand is your methodology. It seems to be based on the fact that the Bible uses the word "heart." The Bible also uses the word "kidneys." I don't understand why the kidneys keep getting left out of the conversation.

What's your criteria for whether something in Scripture should be taken literally, or how literally it should be taken? For example, we're told in several places that Satan and his followers are held by chains. Why aren't these literal chains? (or are they?)

[teresaq]

If someone does not agree with you. Cut them down...Hack them to death...Look at this thread and others, a whisper and thread of mockery throughout, why?

[teresaq]

my post:

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Luk 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

Deu 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

Mar 12:33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength….

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

heart

soul

might

mind

strength

understanding

it looks like the bible writers were trying to convey a thought, not a word.

they were using figurative language to get an idea, a concept, across to us.

[Twilight]

Read my post again. I have not changed my position. The word heart is referring specifically the mind. Every text you just quoted is referring to the mind. I think where you are getting confused is that you think your emotions, your desires, your lust etc. is somehow separate from the mind. But all of those things reside in the mind, and the mind only. There is no other part of your body that feels emotions, or has lust. It all centers in the mind. The mind is the citadel. Without your mind, you don't know if you're happy or sad, or lustful. You don't know anything without the mind.

The second quote supplied dealt with the heart being the "whole being", not just the mind Richard:

When Jesus speaks of the new heart , He means the mind, the life, the whole being.

Do you agree that here, SOP states it is "more" than the mind.

As to the citadel issue, that also has been discussed.

You are insisting that every time Ellen White used the word "citadel", it meant "mind".

This is implying that your own strict usage of the word is the way Ellen White used it.

This has already been discussed and you did not respond to that point.

As to the idea that emotion is in the "mind", I do not find that in my own experience.

Emotion is not experienced in the "mind" but rather the body, the heart etc.

So the only way I can accept your view, is if I take a couple of words from SOP and "nail them down" to mean one thing and one thing only.

Even though it is clear the context of the quotes shows that these words were used in different ways.

It also of course makes us "goggle blind", where we then only look at everything through these few quotes.

Did you not take issue with that when that happened with the destruction of the wicked discussions?

But here you are, doing exactly the same thing my friend.

Using "proof quotes", to support your position, to "intepret" everything else by.

For you, heart means mind, and it does not matter what I say or what I show you, you are never going to leave that position it seems.

Fine. :-)

That is your view and I respect that, but I do not agree it is correct.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

...Now in our modern age, we know that you think with the mind. And we know where the mind is. They didn't know where the thinker was back in Bible times. They thought it was in the center of you. They thought it was in your bowels. Hence the texts referring to your kidneys, and your bowels...

Not only did the ancients not have a good idea where thoughts and emotions originated, they had little or know understanding of the brain or nervous system. In fact the Egyptians considered the brain to be so useless that it was extracted from the skull and discarded in the embalming process while other organs were preserved for mummification and the afterlife. They considered the heart to be the most important organ.

The Greeks likewise had very little understanding of the brain and its functions. Aristotle (335 BC) claimed that the organ of thought and sensation was the heart and that the brain was merely a radiator designed to cool it. This reconfirmed ancient Greek wisdom that the heart was the true seat of intelligence which had been challenged 85 years before Aristotle by the early Greek physician, Alcmaeon, who determined that it was the brain and not the heart that was the center of thinking and sensation.

The influence of those two great cultures on the Biblical writers cannot be ignored or discounted. Those cultures greatly shaped the thinking and language of the Biblical writers. (Israelites in Egypt for 400 years, and Moses educated in the schools of Egypt...)

Beyond the confusion and ignorance of the ancients, any progress on brain research halted during the middle ages (1100-1500) since the Church banned dissection and the study of human anatomy. The development of any sceintific idea had to pass through that religious filter which relied on the ideas of the ancients relected in Scripture. It really was not until the mid to late 19th century (EGW's time) that medical science even began to understand anything more about the brain and its functions.

And it is now that science is beginning to realise that we have mistakenly thrown away the "heart" as a mere pump...

Please note, that Jesus is the basis for my understanding, and what He said, now if we want to claim He was "ignorant", that He needs our understanding of science to correct His view, then we are on dangerous ground.

Anyone agreeing with Toms argument above, is in effect agreeing with the same argument evolutionists use.

"Science" supercedes the bible...

They were all ignorant back then, but "we" know better.

Mark

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Now I do not ask you just to accept this Richard, but I do ask for respect for my view, if no one can show me a good solid reason for not holding it.

And so far, no one has.

Many people have.

What you would accept as a good, solid reason for not holding your idea? I don't see what would be more conclusive than the statement that "a new heart means a new mind." I thought "the brain is the citadel of the being" and "the heart is the citadel of the being" was already conclusive, but couldn't believe it when this other quote was found, which was saying, word for word, the same thing I had been saying.

Tom made some good points.

What I really don't understand is your methodology. It seems to be based on the fact that the Bible uses the word "heart." The Bible also uses the word "kidneys." I don't understand why the kidneys keep getting left out of the conversation.

What's your criteria for whether something in Scripture should be taken literally, or how literally it should be taken? For example, we're told in several places that Satan and his followers are held by chains. Why aren't these literal chains? (or are they?)

Pnat.

I have replied on the quote about the heart being the mind and shown you another quote where Ellen White states something different.

I have also done the same for the word "citadel".

The idea that Ellen White used one "word" in one way only, is applying a thought process that is very dangerous, Ellen White also said this:

When Jesus speaks of the new heart , He means the mind, the life, the whole being.

The whole issue here, is that you are trying to make a few quotes the "foundation" for all others and for the bible. I find that very "concerning" and this type of "theology" is what enables other Christians to label us a cult.

We mis-use Ellen Whites writings as a replacement for the bible. We take one statement of hers on a subject and try to force the bible to fit it.

Why not just go to the bible and read what Jesus actually said?

Rather than trying to use Ellen White to "prove our special position".

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

What's your criteria for whether something in Scripture should be taken literally, or how literally it should be taken? For example, we're told in several places that Satan and his followers are held by chains. Why aren't these literal chains? (or are they?)

What is yours, how do you define it?

To criticise another, you must have your own position to criticise from.

When do you decide it is literal and figurative, do you have rules you wish to share?

Mark

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

If someone does not agree with you. Cut them down...Hack them to death...Look at this thread and others, a whisper and thread of mockery throughout, why?

or tell them they are in error, or being contentious, woody and others can add their lists, ad nauseum. :)Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Quote:

Please also note the bible has been a most unwelcome visitor to this discussion so far...

no it hasnt. i keep trying to get into a "scripture explains scripture" study but get responses that i am being "contentious" or in "error".

Psa 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

Psa 119:97 MEM. O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.

Then present the scripture in a non-personal way Teresa and you will get a response.

[Twilight]

my post:

Originally Posted By: Teresina(sda)

Deu 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

Mar 12:33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength….

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

heart

soul

might

mind

strength

understanding

it looks like the bible writers were trying to convey a thought, not a word.

they were using figurative language to get an idea, a concept, across to us.

your (lack of an appropriate) response to the points i brought up:

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

heart

soul

might

mind

strength

understanding

it looks like the bible writers were trying to convey a thought, not a word.

they were using figurative language to get an idea, a concept, across to us.

So you are no longer insisting on a literal interpretation of the word "mind" then Teresa?

and then say:

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Please also note the bible has been a most unwelcome visitor to this discussion so far... [/quote']

You did not actually answer my question Teresa.

So you broke the flow of discussion down.

I will ask the question again:

heart

soul

might

mind

strength

understanding

it looks like the bible writers were trying to convey a thought, not a word.

they were using figurative language to get an idea, a concept, across to us.

So you are no longer insisting on a literal interpretation of the word "mind" then Teresa?

When it says mind, it is an "idea, a concept, a thought"?

Because if you want to apply the rule one way, you have to apply it evenly.

[pnattmbtc]

Why not just go to the bible and read what Jesus actually said?

[pnattmbtc]

So you are no longer insisting on a literal interpretation of the word "mind" then Teresa?

When it says mind, it is an "idea, a concept, a thought"?

Because if you want to apply the rule one way, you have to apply it evenly.

Pardon my butting in here, Mark, but the word "mind" *is* a concept! The word "brain" can be literal, if it's referring to the physical aspect, but the word "mind" is always a concept. The word "heart" can be either physical, or be being used as the word "mind" is always used. What's being suggested is that it's being used to convey a concept, the same as the word "mind" is.

[Tom Wetmore]

...And it is now that science is beginning to realise that we have mistakenly thrown away the "heart" as a mere pump...

And you are simplistically misinterpreting the scientific information and reading far more into it than is rationally warranted. Physiologically all systems are integrated, interact and "communicate" with one another. That my heart beats more rapidly when experiencing fear does not mean the emotion of fear originates in my heart any more than the fact that I also get a tingling sensation on my back when experiencing fear means that fear originates from the skin on my back. The anatomical fact that the muscles in your leg that control foot movement have neurologically defined and controlled "muscle memory" that react and coordinate with other body parts and systems and external stimuli (including flight response to emotional fear stimuli or micro adjustments to traction and surface texture on the ground) in walking/running/standing without functional brain direction/interaction does not make those muscles "thinking" or "feeling" in a cognitive or emotive sense. For example, when you touch a hot stove the heat stimuli to the nerves in your fingertip send signals directly to the nerves of the muscles of your arm and shoulder to cause the rapid recoil response before your brain even registers a cognitive recognition that the stove is hot. It is my understanding that neurological studies confirm that the nerve activity for such rapid reaction does not go farther than the spinal cord. But those muscles acting independently of the brain are not "thinking" in a cognitive sense any more than the heart does when adjusting to other organ or external stimuli. We are fearfully and wonderfully made...

Originally Posted By: Twilight

...Anyone agreeing with Toms argument above, is in effect agreeing with the same argument evolutionists use.

"Science" supercedes the bible...

They were all ignorant back then, but "we" know better.

If you don't have a good answer, just slap an inflammatory label on to divert attention from the fact that you have no valid response to give...

By that line of reasoning I will expect you to put forth your best flat earth arguments and be insisting that the sun revolves around the earth. The Church of the Dark Ages would welcome your defense of the faith...