Mind Vs Heart

[ritwikbose]

HEART DEFINED IN THE BIBLE- "The word came to stand for man's entire mental and moral activity, both the rational and the emotional elements..."

HEART FAITH VS HEAD FAITH- "How do you convince someone that saving faith is not just faith in the gospel, that it includes commitment, turning from sins, perseverance in obedience, and the like? Since there is no verse in Scripture that identifies saving faith as anything other than believing the gospel, you'd have a hard time proving your view from the Bible. However, there is an easier way.

The best way to sell the idea that saving faith includes the kitchen sink is through the use of pejorative terms like intellectual faith or head faith. Then they espouse the idea that the Bible teaches that the faith that truly saves is heart faith.

There is a tract called 'Missing Heaven by Eighteen Inches.' It argues that you would miss heaven if you believed the gospel with your head rather than with your heart. Head faith is dangerous, it suggests, because you may think you are saved simply because you believe the facts of the gospel. Yet without the heart commitment, that 'faith' is not saving faith at all.

Heart faith can include almost anything. However, heart faith raises potential problems. How much commitment, turning from sins, obedience, and the like is enough? The biblical evidence demonstrates that this supposed distinction between head faith and heart faith is really a mind game.

First, the Scriptures never refer to the head as the source of thinking and feeling. In addition, the word head is never associated with faith in the Bible."

What should I believe... Which is great Mind or Heart :duh:

[a random hack]

both,,,neither,,,bwahahaahahahahahahahahaha :lol:

[thirst4sun]

[/QUOTE]What should I believe... Which is great Mind or Heart


Well the first thing you need to beleive in is yourself. You need to trust your own judgement to answer your question. ;)

[Nick_A]

For me, the idea or mine vs. heart, or faith vs. reason, that this appears as an either/or question is just another proof of the fallen state of man. There is no reason why they should appear in opposition.

As I understand it, our inner states are always fluctuating. It is part of what was meant by St. Paul when he described himself as the "wretched man". We are in opposition to ourselves because of the disuinity of our being reflected in its inner states. One moment we are one way and the next moment we are something else.

Man I believe is dual natured. One of these natures is his existence in relation to the ground up or as part of organic life and is part of the cycle of from "dust to dust". The other part of man's nature existing as potential is part of the involution of consciousness into matter where consciousness becomes less and less.

The intellect can be of purely the associative kind as it most often is where its role is similar to a computer's that just draws these associations. However, it also can be the process of the work of the Holy Spirit that reconciles the functions of these two different natures.

This thinking process is both necessary and a pure aspect of man's potential evolution but is not necessary for man on earth that survives fine without it. This intellectual capacity is valuable only for those in pursuit of meaning that cannot come from regular life. It is the goal of "pondering".

We have this heart and it also can reflect different qualities. Normally we are guided by "emotions" that, like our associative thought, are a product of man's adaptation to life on earth. Some of these emotions are considered positive, and other's negative again reflecting the condition of life on earth. In this way a man's ability to love from the earth is the same as a dog's. Sometimes a dog's love, from lack of ego, is more pure. these emotion, often appearing so attractive, can also hinder a person's search for meaning similar to the way associative thinking does since it is not designed to grasp the realities of higher consciousness.

However the heart also has the capacity for "feelings'. For these feelings to be experienced, a person must put their emotions aside. These feelings are connected with the sacred impusles of Faith, Hope, and Love. Their origin is not of the earth but instead from above this plane of existence, the direction of man's possible evolution. Their quality is much different and impossible to describe. They must be experienced.

So the question for me isn't between mind and heart; Instead it is the quality of the conscious perception of our inner states through impartial self awareness. The question is self awarenes vs. the lack of self awareness. The more we are able to discriminate and better these states through the inclusion of consciousness, the more open we are to the cooperation of the mind and the heart on a higher level which should be a natural attribute for "normal man" of which the fallen state has gradually made abnormal.

[Kya]

The mind and the heart have never been separate or against each other, anymore than the body and the mind. In all emotion is embedded the nascency of all values for which the language of reason gives more explicit voice. It is "felt" first; "seen" later through the winding beauty of reason.

What then is "too" emotional? Over-valuing, I suspect, without the language of reason ready-to-hand. Once the language of reason fashions it in passable expression to someone else, then the values contained therein will be understood too. But they will be "felt" first as well by the listener.

The sensation of something "making sense" [mind] is a feeling. isn't it.

Are either of these things [mind heart] the leaders toward some supra-human understanding beyond ourselves? - to some non-personal "truth"?

Of course not. They are one and the same bountiful description of the living experience.