Replies

What comes to our mind from the flesh are simply impulses, drives, not noetic thoughts, for the the flesh moves by necessity and not by reason.

The Apostle correctly observes that a carnal mindset is something (essentuially, that is as regards to nature) alien, indeed antithecal, to God.

If you don’t mind, I’d like to get “two cents” in the discussion of the “carnal mind” by offering a few perspectives from the Scriptures, Jewish tradition and Science corners.

Scriptures and Jewish tradition speaks of the soul and spirit in four levels as follows:

1. nephesh – the will to live, the animal soul, or the soul of all living things (Genesis 1:20) which by Jewish tradition returns to the “earth” after death. In Romans 8, this is seen as a whole, the creation longing for the children of God to be revealed. This is what betty boop and I have described as being field-like, existing in all points of space/time.

2. ruach - the self-will or free will peculiar to man (abstraction, anticipation, intention, etc.) – by Jewish tradition, the pivot wherein a man decides to be Godly minded or earthy minded (also related to Romans 8, choosing)

3. neshama - the breath of God given to Adam (Genesis 2:7) which may also be seen as the “ears to hear” (John 10) - a sense of belonging beyond space/time, a predisposition to seek God and seek answers to the deep questions such as “what is the meaning of life?"

4. ruach Elohim - the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2) which indwells Christians (I Cor 2, John 3) – the presently existing in the “beyond” while still in the flesh. (Col 3:3) This is the life in the passage: "In him was life, and the life was the light of men..." (John 1)

I suspect only the first two on the list would be manifest in such a way that science might be able to detect them - the last two are gifts of God.

The “will to live” (nephesh) permeates the entire biosphere and perhaps the entire universe. For that reason, we assert that it is field-like (existing in all points of space/time). It is observed in plants and animals, in creatures which go into dormant phases of their life cycle. It (including decision making) is observed in the simplest of life forms (cell intelligence).

It is also observed in collectives of organisms which act as if one mind (ants, bees, etc.). The “will to live” also permeates throughout the molecular machinery of higher organisms. For instance, if a part of the heart dies (myocardial infarction) – the molecular machinery will continue to struggle to survive, routing blood flow around the dead tissue. A person can be “brain dead” and yet the rest of the body will struggle to survive and will succeed if a machine (respirator) is used to simulate the cyclic instruction of the brain.

If a field is the medium for this "will to live" - then it may be measurable indirectly by its effects on other fields, such as the electromagnetic field in living organisms. Alternatively or additionally, it may be geometrically related to the semiosis (the language, encoding and decoding) in living creatures, i.e. information theory and molecular biology. Such possibilities are being investigated.

The “self-will” OTOH is in the domain of the ongoing inter-disciplinary studies of consciousness and the mind.

The monist view would be that consciousness (as well as the soul) are merely an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. Epiphenomenons are secondary phenomenons which can cause nothing to happen.

But qualia speaks against such a conclusion. Qualia are the properties of sensory experiences which are epistemically unknowable in the absence of direct experience of them and therefore, are also incommunicable. Examples include likes and dislikes, pain and pleasure, love and hate, good and evil.

Just my two cents for the discussion...

AG, the Greek view of the 'mind' was somewhat simpler. But they invariably associated the soul (pneuma) with reason (nous). The carnal part enters our mind only as necessity, an appetitive drive, which disregards nous. If we suppress the nous, we act impulsively, and that is alien to God's nature. Our carnal acts are therefore opposite of God, and that which is opposite of God is without God, which is sin.

But we still have a mind. We are not entirely driven by the body as the animals are. But we cannot condemn that which is carnal and without the nous. Because carnal, although sinful in that it is alien to God, in absence of a nous is innocent.

Thus babies and children and animals are not held accountable for their acts. One can be sinful only if he or she intentionally gives in to carnal impulses when he or she knows and understands that it is morally wrong.

God created man to be a rational and moral being. Only those who are capable of being rational and moral but choose otherwise are guilty of sin.