I disagree. I find it mathematically logical.
I'm not sure you are objective either.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Interesting Quotes from Presidents and Founding Fathers
- Thread starter Kenny
- Start date
I'm not sure you are objective either.
Nothing to with math. It is simply a self-motivated choice on your part.
Down the rabbit hole with Alice, and contemplate your objective existence at the Mad Hatter's Tea Party and hangout with Cheshire cat.
LOL - I say this with a light heart and not trying to be contentious. But, did you ask me to have "scripture confirmint it" after making statements with no scripture confirming it?Hmm.
I think we have different definitions.
Since we are both human, we both ideally have the same senses. Spirituality, pysiological, and psychological go hand in hand. To say spiritual is different than these things is saying X amount of people have special feelings (say from god) while others mundane. I disagree regardless however phrased.
For example, spirituality is physiological. When you get that god-umph, what does your Body tell you? Is dull? Numb? Robotic?
Psycological is how you (whether you regard it as heart/god or not, I'll get to) you interpret those feelings. Are they from god? Scripture? Which verse clicks with you at the moment? Why? If its just heart/god, are you not god to where only the heart experiences truth but you seperate your human feelings not of god?
What about you is in his image when seperate feelings into two definitions? God is not two in christianity. How you personalize your umph/god/heart is how you express, seperate, or unify the concept of god...
With scripture confirming it
No, I don't think spirituality, pysiological and psychological necessarily go hand it hand. (Not to say they can't, but not normally). I am, of course, speaking in a Christian perspective.
Let's take a look at two verses:
Romans 12 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
1 Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to presentyour bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.
2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptableand perfect.
Body - a living sacrifice which means you must not yield to the flesh, it is working against you. (many other scriptures)
Soul/mind - must be transformed, for if not, it will think like this world thinks. It may think differently that what your spirit is telling you because we are led by the spirit and not by our soul
spirit - born again, thinks like God.
A great example is Peter and walking on water. When his soul aligned up with the faith of the spirit, the physical was able to do what it cannot do, walk on water. Once his soul took over and ceased operating according to the faith of his spirit, the physical took control.
So, to prove the good, acceptable and perfect will of God, one must first renew (change) one's thinking and also sacrifice what the body is saying.
Now... just to oppose myself and my position in support of yours... there are times when feelings or experiences that validate something. For an example, I remember praying for a youth and feeling virtue literally jump out of me and when it hit her, she fell down. She also got up healed. Certainly the feeling did validate many things.
Yes... that can happen. Again, with a Christian perspective, I am reminded that we believe there is an Anit-Christ which is just as spiritual, has energy but isn't God. It is lower. Old Testament is filled with non-Jews who experienced God even as they also experienced that which was not.
ok
True... true... There are difference in religion. I respect the fact that we will have differences of viewpoint but still can help the poor, have civil discourse and even eat together.
Edited.
May you have a great rest of your day.
Then we will have to agree to disagree
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Lol
Haha. Since spirituality is also psychological, that spiritual umph is not only isolated but confirmed by scripture and your interpretatiom of it. Eh. My wording needs some work, I must say...
Hmm.
Your soul and flesh work hand in hand. If the flesh doesnt work with thr spirit, to what is christ saving your soul from? If the flesh is not dependent on the soul (and vis versa), that jesus in the flesh means nothing.
Think of it this way. If the flesh-in general-means nothing and pulls gou from god, jesus wouldnt be in the flesh unless he had sin. In order to save, he would need to have sin/flesh in order to be one with the christian innthr flesh. When you seperate jesus from flesh, one can no longer be one with god because you need flesh to be one like adam and eve.
Outside the trinity, my point is jesus is both son by divinity and by flesh. When you seperate flesh from soul, you seperate jesus christ. The flesh Im speaking of is the material nature aligned with the spirit rather than the inherited sin which tainted the flesh not became it.
I never understood seperation from the "world" and belittling it, really. Who did christ died for if not for the world (the people-you and I included)? Unless theres another definition?
Thats an example of one without faith. If you have faith you can do anything in god. If peter walked only in spirit, how did his disciples see him? Jesus also mentioned he does physical things in order for his disciples to believe (hence physical resurrection; physical crucifiction) The flesh (material/faith by site) was needed because people didnt have faith in christ's father through his son. Once they received the holy spirit, they taught faith.
Unless you see jesus' accounts symbolism? That would explain a lot of how you interpret the bible.
Once you relieve the flesh, what are you? Adam and eve were with god in the flesh. The father said christians will have new bodies and be above the angels. What do you mean by flesh?
Yes. Exactly. Those feelings aligned with god (psychological and physiological) would validate those feelings true. They are still feelings-from the body. The feelings relationship with the soul become one (like jesus being the image of his father)
Eh. One thing Id never get in christianity. I stopped tryin'
Good convo nonetheless.
Whats interesting is every christian has their own take but still seperate themselves from interpretation thinking the spirit tells them the truth and others misguided.
If there is one spirit, all truths should be the same.
LOL - I say this with a light heart and not trying to be contentious. But, did you ask me to have "scripture confirmint it" after making statements with no scripture confirming it?
Haha. Since spirituality is also psychological, that spiritual umph is not only isolated but confirmed by scripture and your interpretatiom of it. Eh. My wording needs some work, I must say...
Hmm.
Your soul and flesh work hand in hand. If the flesh doesnt work with thr spirit, to what is christ saving your soul from? If the flesh is not dependent on the soul (and vis versa), that jesus in the flesh means nothing.
Think of it this way. If the flesh-in general-means nothing and pulls gou from god, jesus wouldnt be in the flesh unless he had sin. In order to save, he would need to have sin/flesh in order to be one with the christian innthr flesh. When you seperate jesus from flesh, one can no longer be one with god because you need flesh to be one like adam and eve.
Outside the trinity, my point is jesus is both son by divinity and by flesh. When you seperate flesh from soul, you seperate jesus christ. The flesh Im speaking of is the material nature aligned with the spirit rather than the inherited sin which tainted the flesh not became it.
I never understood seperation from the "world" and belittling it, really. Who did christ died for if not for the world (the people-you and I included)? Unless theres another definition?
Thats an example of one without faith. If you have faith you can do anything in god. If peter walked only in spirit, how did his disciples see him? Jesus also mentioned he does physical things in order for his disciples to believe (hence physical resurrection; physical crucifiction) The flesh (material/faith by site) was needed because people didnt have faith in christ's father through his son. Once they received the holy spirit, they taught faith.
Unless you see jesus' accounts symbolism? That would explain a lot of how you interpret the bible.
Once you relieve the flesh, what are you? Adam and eve were with god in the flesh. The father said christians will have new bodies and be above the angels. What do you mean by flesh?
Yes. Exactly. Those feelings aligned with god (psychological and physiological) would validate those feelings true. They are still feelings-from the body. The feelings relationship with the soul become one (like jesus being the image of his father)
Eh. One thing Id never get in christianity. I stopped tryin'
Good convo nonetheless.
Whats interesting is every christian has their own take but still seperate themselves from interpretation thinking the spirit tells them the truth and others misguided.
If there is one spirit, all truths should be the same.
That will likely be the case, but nonetheless the logical development of math theorems in the philosophy of math has no relationship to the logical arguments concerning theological questions.Then we will have to agree to disagree
The basics are here: Philosophy of Mathematics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
"1. Philosophy of Mathematics, Logic, and the Foundations of Mathematics
On the one hand, philosophy of mathematics is concerned with problems that are closely related to central problems of metaphysics and epistemology. At first blush, mathematics appears to study abstract entities. This makes one wonder what the nature of mathematical entities consists in and how we can have knowledge of mathematical entities. If these problems are regarded as intractable, then one might try to see if mathematical objects can somehow belong to the concrete world after all.
On the other hand, it has turned out that to some extent it is possible to bring mathematical methods to bear on philosophical questions concerning mathematics. The setting in which this has been done is that of mathematical logic when it is broadly conceived as comprising proof theory, model theory, set theory, and computability theory as subfields. Thus the twentieth century has witnessed the mathematical investigation of the consequences of what are at bottom philosophical theories concerning the nature of mathematics.
When professional mathematicians are concerned with the foundations of their subject, they are said to be engaged in foundational research. When professional philosophers investigate philosophical questions concerning mathematics, they are said to contribute to the philosophy of mathematics. Of course the distinction between the philosophy of mathematics and the foundations of mathematics is vague, and the more interaction there is between philosophers and mathematicians working on questions pertaining to the nature of mathematics, the better."
The misuse of math is dishonest as the misuse of science to justify a theological belief, question or argument, Math like science is neutral to theological arguments.
Last edited:
At face value... I would agree completely. A little more complex than just that as I explain below.
There are many statements here and I don't think we really have covered as a foundation to be able to accept all of the these statements.
Yes, flesh can pull you from God unless we present it as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable. The same flesh that can pull you away from God is the same flesh that can lay place a blessing on someones life.
The soul, as I view it, is the elbow from the spirit to the flesh. If the soul is renewed, then it follows the spirit (the spirit is in control) and the body submits. If it isn't renewed, it is carnal and the body will be in control.
Though Jesus was in the flesh, he did not have sin because his body was created by the "Holy" Spirit as Adam also had no sin until he commited high treason. Had Jesus been born of a man, he would have been formed with dirt which was cursed back at Adams sin.
I'm lost here. I can't seem to follow the logic.
Did we cover "separation from the world"? I don't recall talking about it. But, yes, Jesus died for mankind and to redeem "the world".
We have another "definition" misunderstanding (my fault). My "walking in the spirit" doesn't mean you can't be seen. I should have said "Walking by the Spirit".
The sensual carnal side.
LOL...Eh. One thing Id never get in christianity. I stopped tryin'
No argument here!
But I understand how that happens not to mention there are baby Christians, carnal Christians, young Christians, and a host of other types that would also cause differences.
Do have a great day!
Last edited:
POSTULATE:
- Mathematics, Logic. to assume as a postulate.
- noun: something taken as self-evident or assumed without proof as a basisfor reasoning.
- Mathematics, Logic. a proposition that requires no proof, being self-evident, or that is for a specific purpose assumed true, and that isused in the proof of other propositions; axiom.
- a fundamental principle.
- a necessary condition; prerequisite.
So, I disagree with the voluminous use of your words to make it sound like that you are right.
My references are from academic sources. You have provided none, and the above does not describe the reality of math,
Tested what 'sucker?' Mathematics is based on number theory. What is 'self-evident in math is expressed in terms of axioms with accepted rules of inference concerning number theory ONLY.
Math theorems are based on logical math proofs of number theory.
From: math proofs - Google Search
"In mathematics, a proof is an inferential argument for a mathematical statement. In the argument, other previously established statements, such as theorems, can be used. In principle, a proof can be traced back to self-evident or assumed statements, known as axioms, along with accepted rules of inference."
Tested the precepts in the Bible as that was the subject matter that started your voluminous statements.
I used a logical mathematical principle and applied it.
It worketh!
It would appear you really have a problem with me believing.
Tested the precepts in the Bible as that was the subject matter that started your voluminous statements.
I used a logical mathematical principle and applied it.
It worketh!
It would appear you really have a problem with me believing.
The problem is not necessarily believing, but with applying a mathematical principle to a theological question and making it meaningful in an argument, which you have failed to demonstrate.
Number theory, and the theorems, proofs and principles of math do not apply to theological questions.
I guess I'm covering new territory... the science of applied mathematics to faith. Let science continue forward
And since you are not the determiner of "can and can't" and since "I did", your theory is no longer a valid position.
I guess I'm covering new territory... the science of applied mathematics to faith. Let science continue forward
And since you are not the determiner of "can and can't" and since "I did", your theory is no longer a valid position.
It is not my position and I am not the determiner. neither are you. Methodological Naturalism as far as science, and the academics of math are the determiners in their disciplines.
Math is the part of the tool box of science, and everyday life, and not applied to theological questions.
Which I have just disproven
Which I have just disproven
So far you have only presented confusing assertions.
IYHO
No, not mine, academic references, because you have only presenting personal assertions IYHO applies to your responses.
Go in peace, shuny.
When in dialogues please try and present a coherent argument with accurate references.
Last edited:
You have to want to dialogue without bias for there to be good comunication.