Trinity, Trinity, Trinity.

[Zakuska]

Sure will Good Doctor.

At the same time, I recognize the limitations of Trinitarianism: it is a human attempt to understand the nature of God as revealed in the Bible, and it cannot in itself provide all the answers.

If my tag line wasn't so big You would have made it to the top.

Thanks CK. Amen.

[Doctor Steuss]

CK,

I was unaware that there were different types of Trinitarianism. But, I imagine that they only differ in minor respects (confirm/deny ?).

Are there any books you could recommend (preferably that donâ??t require extensive amounts of brain cells) that delve into the varying types of Trinitarian thought?

Thanks,

Stu

[Chris Smith]

Stu,

Take a look at this JETS article. The first couple pages provide a helpful overview of the Eastern and Western views. http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/47/47-...99-421_JETS.pdf

There are some pretty substantial (no pun intended) differences in the way they understand homoousios. The LDS view as expressed by Robert Millet in A Different Jesus is very similar to the Eastern view of the Trinity (with some subtle but important differences). I find Millet's view mostly unobjectionable. Unfortunately, I think that very few LDS would say with him that "the three are infinitely more one than separate."

-CK

[rhinomelon]

Since the Holy Ghost is sent, it seems obvious to me that he is subordinate. Since he is sent by the Father in Jesus' name, I would posit that he is subordinate to both the Father and the Son.

Of course, the Bible also speaks of the Spirit sending the Son, and of the Son being conceived in the flesh by the power of the Spirit, etc. Such instances make a simple hierarchy difficult to maintain, and point more towards co-equality with functional subordination in roles.

I was unaware that there were different types of Trinitarianism. But, I imagine that they only differ in minor respects (confirm/deny ?).

The difference between Eastern and Western views of the Trinity are probably the largest within orthodoxy. Just from glancing through the article CK posted, it looks like it would be a great read.

Take care, everyone

[Hammer]

Doctor Steuss,

Kudos to you for sincerely trying to understand a foreign belief.

Unfortunately, there are two stumbling blocks preventing us from currently obtaining a perfect understanding of God's Triune nature.

The first obstacle is our limit of understanding, as Paul says, we "see as through a glass, darkly".

The second obstacle is that God is unique, which necessarily means that there is nothing for us to compare Him to, by way of analogy. So any attempts of "God is like a/an..." is doomed from the start, having fatal flaws, always being limited.

As to your Sun and sun's rays analogy, I don't really like it, as it seems to make the Father the "substantial" aspect of God, and the Son and Holy Spirit simply tangential components. Also, the analogy sounds too much like the LDS understanding of the Godhead for my tastes.

The "water" analogy doesn't work.

The "moutains" analogy does't work.

The "three hats" analogy doesn't work.

There is no adequate analogy, not because the Trinity is false, but simply because god is unique, and there is nothing with which to compare Him.

It seems to me that the biggest stumbling block is to try to get past the assumption that "one person equals one god", as it is something not taught in the Bible, and seems to be an assumption that non-Trinitarians always bring with them.

The terminology can also be a stumbling block. It seems that when Trinitarians speak of the "persons" of the Trinity, or "personages", others assume it to mean something like "bodily being". In the Trinitarian context, all it means is that there are distinct (notice the difference between distinct and separate) identities with personal attributes. Rhino might be able to expound on that a bit better.

Hope that helps.

Theophilus

You make it sound like the many faces of eve --speaking of the movie of a mentally ill woman who had several personalities.

[rhinomelon]

You make it sound like the many faces of eve --speaking of the movie of a mentally ill woman who had several personalities.

Several of my LDS friends would make similar comparisons, saying that the Trinity just sounded like a schizophrenic guy up in the sky somewhere. But this is where foundational beliefs of the LDS church cloud the issue, and need to be set aside when trying to understand the Trinity. The LDS church tends to put any talk about God in human terms; humanity is the primary blueprint used when thinking about God.

With mainstream Christianity, it is believed that man is a creation of God, and not a perfect base for comparison. If God were one embodied human-like being with three persons inside, that would be very much like a multiple personality disorder. But God is not like man, and is not a single embodied entity like we are. God exists as one being made up of three distinct persons, each with their own wills, roles, and titles. They exist in perfect community as one God, interpenetrating one another fully (the Orthodox term for this is "perichoresis"). It is not a case of multiple personalities, since that disorder is abnormal for human beings, but simply normal for God. It is Who God is, who He has revealed Himself to be.

But even in human beings, there is the presence of almost another personality. The church father Tertullian wrote an absolutely brilliant piece comparing the "voice of the other" in our minds (with whom we dialogue constantly almost without realizing it) to the presence of the Word in God. In other words, responding to those who wanted to make two Gods out of the Father and Son, Tertullian noted that, in a way, we humans have another person inside of us, distinct and yet one with us. I'll see if I can find that writing and link to it. It is really quite profound.

There are many analogies that have been proposed to describe this state of affairs, but as C.S. Lewis said, all fail at some point because there is nothing in creation that can adequately and fully compare to Someone uncreated and eternal.

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Here's the link to the Tertullian passage I mentioned. It's in Chapter 5 primarily:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian17.html

Enjoy!

[Magyar]

Now, this is apologetics as it ought to be!

This thread should be sticky-fied somewhere, just to serve as an example for others.

It's people of different beliefs earnestly discussing them and trying to understand one another, with minimum rancor and condemnation. The goal is to understand differences, not win a rhetorical gladiator game.

Now if we could only do this with every subject on this board!

My own forgettable, long-ago contribution in this thread was not in that vein -- revealing how far I have to go before I can consider myself a true apologist.

[Doctor Steuss]

Here's the link to the Tertullian passage I mentioned. It's in Chapter 5 primarily:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian17.html

Enjoy!

Holy confusion Batman!

I'm gonna need you to hold my hand a bit here buddy...

Is this saying that although the Word potentially existed (as Reason), it didn't completely exist until later? So basically, the Son existed in a way (more as a concept), but wasn't completely the Son until later (when He became the Word)?

Am I making this more confusing than it needs to be?

[rhinomelon]

Am I making this more confusing than it needs to be?

I believe so, but it is understandable. Tertullian was writing before some of the heavy lifting in the Trinity had been done, and so his views are not entirely in line with what came later. For instance, he has a strong subordinationist tone when speaking of the Son's relationship to the Father.

That being said, I don't think that Tertullian ever says that the Son existed only potentially at some point. He basically expounding on different scriptural terms for the second person in the Trinity, in different ways. He says that the Son always existed in the Father as a distinct person, using the term logos or "word" to carry an analogy with us and our reason, almost a second personal voice inside ourselves.

Does that answer your question? If not, maybe you could cut and paste some specific passages that are causing the headache. Take care

[Doctor Steuss]

Does that answer your question? If not, maybe you could cut and paste some specific passages that are causing the headache. Take care

Maybe I just need to stew (pun intended) on it for a while...

Thanks,

Stu

[rhinomelon]

Could you be taking the comparison Tertullian made a little too far? Perhaps by looking at how our inner reason is certainly not a separate person, so that was God was like before He gave His Word a distinct "personhood"? I don't know, I'm just trying to see where you're coming from. Tertullian does indicate at the end of the fifth chapter that the analogy obviously goes much further with God, since the Word is in fact a distinct person.

Just some thoughts to add to the boiling brew.

[emeliza]

Could you be taking the comparison Tertullian made a little too far? Perhaps by looking at how our inner reason is certainly not a separate person, so that was God was like before He gave His Word a distinct "personhood"? I don't know, I'm just trying to see where you're coming from. Tertullian does indicate at the end of the fifth chapter that the analogy obviously goes much further with God, since the Word is in fact a distinct person.

Just some thoughts to add to the boiling brew.

Maybe the good Doctor is a literalist like myself. I have a hard time seeing things figuratively, even when I try. Probably one of the reasons I couldn't really make sense of the Trinity myself, though I think I have the concept sort of down....depending on the denomination.

[Doctor Steuss]

Here's where I'm getting a bit lost:

There are some who allege that even Genesis opens thus in Hebrew: "In the beginning God made for Himself a Son." As there is no ground for this, I am led to other arguments derived from God's own dispensation, in which He existed before the creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things God was alone -- being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Yought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call logos, by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God; although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient; because God had not Word from the beginning, but He had Reason even before the beginning; because also Word itself consists of Reason, which it thus proves to have been the prior existence as being its own substance. Not that this distinction is of any practical moment. For although God had not yet sent out His Word, He still had Him within Himself, both in company with and included within His very Reason, as He silently planned and arranged within Himself everything which He was afterwards about to utter through His Word.

[rhinomelon]

Maybe the good Doctor is a literalist like myself. I have a hard time seeing things figuratively, even when I try. Probably one of the reasons I couldn't really make sense of the Trinity myself, though I think I have the concept sort of down....depending on the denomination.

Just out of curiosity, what kinds of denominational differences do you see within mainstream Christianity regarding the Trinity? In my experience, the Trinity is one of the areas in which any given creed or denominational confession will agree. The only difference I could really think of was the Filioque clause dispute between Eastern Orthodoxy and western Christianity (Catholics and Protestants).

Here's where I'm getting a bit lost:

Hmmm, I can see what you're getting at. At this moment, I'm at a loss. I know what the Trinity is, but sometimes the preliminary work that was done leading up to its acceptance bogs me down as well. Let me dig into it a while, maybe over the weekend, and I'll get back to you on this.

Perhaps this would be a way to explain it, now that I've reread it a couple times. Tertullian is using several different scriptural terms for the second person of the Trinity. "Logos" or "Word" is one, as we already said, but Tertullian also uses Sophia/Wisdom or Reason as one as well. The way he lays it out assumes a basic order that is already somewhat familiar: before we speak, we think or use our reason. I don't think Tertullian is suggesting that the second person of the Trinity did not exist until the Word arose out of Reason. Rather, I think he would say that the second person of the Trinity was first Wisdom or Reason, and then became the Word at the moment of Creation. I would be willing to bet, based on this progression, that Tertullian would also say that the second person of the Trinity is not called "Son" until the incarnation.

So basically, Tertullian is saying that the second person of the Trinity has always been in/with God, first as the Reason or Wisdom inside the mind of God (a common expression in the early church fathers, if I remember right), then as the Word when that Reason was spoken out in the initial act of creation. So the second person of the Trinity has always existed, just in different roles or functions in the continuing process of creation and salvation.

Just an off-the-cuff summary of what I'm seeing at this point. But I will dig into this further later on. I'll be gone tomorrow and through the weekend, so after today don't expect much from me for a little bit.

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Now, whilst He was thus planning and arranging with His own Reason, He was actually causing that to become Word which He was dealing with in the way of Word or Discourse.

I think the phrase above bolsters my reading somewhat. The Reason, in the course of planning the Creation, becomes Word. Elsewhere Tertullian also states that the Word is inherent within Reason, so my thinking at this point is that Tertullian is describing the second person of the Trinity as the roles of this person progress in God's overall plan. Some more applicable passages from later on in Tertullian's writing:

This power and disposition of the Divine Intelligence is set forth also in the Scriptures under the name of Sofia, Wisdom; for what can be better entitled to the name of Wisdom than the Reason or the Word of God? Listen therefore to Wisdom herself, constituted in the character of a Second Person

Then, therefore, does the Word also Himself assume His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, "Let there be light." This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God -- formed by Him first to devise and think out all thinks under the name of Wisdom

thus is it evident that it is one and the same power which is in one place described under the name of Wisdom, and in another passage under the appellation of the Word, which was initiated for the works of God? which "strengthened the heavens;" "by which all things were made," "and without which nothing was made." Nor need we dwell any longer on this point, as if it were not the very Word Himself, who is spoken of under the name both of Wisdom and of Reason, and of the entire Divine Soul and Spirit.

That last one is pretty good, I think. Anyway, do you think I'm full of it, or am I actually on to something?

Take care, all

[emeliza]

Just out of curiosity, what kinds of denominational differences do you see within mainstream Christianity regarding the Trinity? In my experience, the Trinity is one of the areas in which any given creed or denominational confession will agree. The only difference I could really think of was the Filioque clause dispute between Eastern Orthodoxy and western Christianity (Catholics and Protestants).

Maybe it is just the explanations from people that I get. I know if I start talking with someone and I think I get it, they usually change something on it and I am at a complete loss again. I think people's own thoughts often skew what the denomination actually is trying to say sometimes. Like my AoG friend who accepts the Trinity in the same exact way that I accept the Godhead. His pastor supported it too when we all talked about it....well until he found out I was LDS and then he sort of back tracked half of it to tie it all up and then both me and my friend were confused.

Also each denomination tends to write their own doctrine on what the Trinity means. Some of them are easy reads and I have little trouble figuring it out and the next on is a hard read and I can't even begin to get at what they are saying. I will have to search some out so I can show you what I mean.

[Hammer]

Several of my LDS friends would make similar comparisons, saying that the Trinity just sounded like a schizophrenic guy up in the sky somewhere. But this is where foundational beliefs of the LDS church cloud the issue, and need to be set aside when trying to understand the Trinity. The LDS church tends to put any talk about God in human terms; humanity is the primary blueprint used when thinking about God.

With mainstream Christianity, it is believed that man is a creation of God, and not a perfect base for comparison. If God were one embodied human-like being with three persons inside, that would be very much like a multiple personality disorder. But God is not like man, and is not a single embodied entity like we are. God exists as one being made up of three distinct persons, each with their own wills, roles, and titles. They exist in perfect community as one God, interpenetrating one another fully (the Orthodox term for this is "perichoresis"). It is not a case of multiple personalities, since that disorder is abnormal for human beings, but simply normal for God. It is Who God is, who He has revealed Himself to be.

But even in human beings, there is the presence of almost another personality. The church father Tertullian wrote an absolutely brilliant piece comparing the "voice of the other" in our minds (with whom we dialogue constantly almost without realizing it) to the presence of the Word in God. In other words, responding to those who wanted to make two Gods out of the Father and Son, Tertullian noted that, in a way, we humans have another person inside of us, distinct and yet one with us. I'll see if I can find that writing and link to it. It is really quite profound.

There are many analogies that have been proposed to describe this state of affairs, but as C.S. Lewis said, all fail at some point because there is nothing in creation that can adequately and fully compare to Someone uncreated and eternal.

Take care, everyone

I see a big problem with not accepting God as a person in a form of human. I'll tell you why through Scripture:

Gen. 2: 24-25

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Who is Adam and Eve's mother and father that they leave?

In case you want to claim this is pertaining to their children after them, I won't accept that unless you have scriptural proof of such a thing.

I don't believe Our Father wants us confused. Do you?

There is always a spiritual concept that correlates with a physical actuality. Physical birth, with spiritual birth, physical baptism, with baptism by fire etc.

Where is God/physcially, if He is only spirit? God, if nothing else, is consistent. Please don't tell me He had to wait until He was born as Christ to become physical. Didn't Christ state that He only did that which He saw the Father do?

Just a few questions.

[Doctor Steuss]

Anyway, do you think I'm full of it, or am I actually on to something?

Take care, all

You're full of it.

Kidding... I think youâ??re making sense. After your explanation (in post #190) things made more sense. Of course it took me a bit to set aside my LDS goggles (at first as I read your explanation, I saw â??Fatherâ? and â??Sophia/Wisdom or Reasonâ? [i.e. Heavenly Mother] existed and then the Son came forth from them).

I know what the Trinity is, but sometimes the preliminary work that was done leading up to its acceptance bogs me down as well.

And I think this is what may have thrown me off a bit. I know that you have helped me to gain a pretty close understanding of the Trinity, but the Tertullian passage didnâ??t fit completely with what I had learned thus far, but upon reading your explanation, it makes a bit more sense.

Thank you for taking time to hold my hand some. I really do appreciate it.

[rhinomelon]

Thank you for taking time to hold my hand some. I really do appreciate it.

That's what she said.

By the way, I think you would really enjoy and benefit from reading Robert Louis Wilken's book, "The Spirit of Early Christian Thought". It is in most libraries that I've seen, as it's written just as much for a lay audience as a scholarly one. He has a way of explaining the thinking of the early church in a plain-spoken yet colorful and memorable way. I think you would really enjoy it!

I see a big problem with not accepting God as a person in a form of human. I'll tell you why through Scripture:

Gen. 2: 24-25

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Who is Adam and Eve's mother and father that they leave?

In case you want to claim this is pertaining to their children after them, I won't accept that unless you have scriptural proof of such a thing.

Note that there is nothing in this passage about being embodied or not. Rather, the focus is on the relationships involved, particularly the close bond between man and woman (one coming from the other), created from the beginning.

I don't believe Our Father wants us confused. Do you?

There is always a spiritual concept that correlates with a physical actuality. Physical birth, with spiritual birth, physical baptism, with baptism by fire etc.

I don't believe He wants us confused, but that does not mean that everything has to be easily grasped and simple to understand. Confusion is simply what happens when mortal, finite human beings try to comprehend eternity and and different plane of existence.

Mainstream Christianity might agree that there are physical representation that symbolize or enact spiritual realities, but that does not mean that the two are one and the same, nor would it mean that every single spiritual truth has to have a physical counterpart. As it says in Scripture, to whom or what would you compare God?

Where is God/physcially, if He is only spirit? God, if nothing else, is consistent. Please don't tell me He had to wait until He was born as Christ to become physical. Didn't Christ state that He only did that which He saw the Father do?

God is everywhere (Jeremiah 23:23 is an easy to remember reference for that), omnipresent. I'm sorry, but I'll have to disobey your wishes and state that God was not incarnate in any form until the incarnation of the Son in Jesus Christ. The incarnation was a unique event, completely unprecedented. Much is made that God actually took on bodily form (John 1 and Colossians speak of this), which indicates that this would be a change from how God interacted with humanity beforehand.

As far as the John passage regarding Christ doing what he sees the Father doing, the fact that this is in the present tense negates the common LDS interpretation, in my opinion. God was accomplishing something new through Christ, and Christ did only what He saw the Father was doing in this task. This would not mean that the Father also was born of a virgin, died on a cross, chose twelve disciples with one traitor in the mix, walked to Jerusalem and then rode in on the back of a colt, etc. At least, I wouldn't think most LDS would go so far as to say so.

Good questions, I hope I was able to clear them up a bit. Take care

[Hammer]

Rhino,

Why would resurrection be such a big deal if God isn't embodied?

God can be everywhere via his Spirit. Doesn't mean He must only be a body. Have your read section 88? I have my parents in my body and my Heavenly Father in my Spirit and body.

He is in everything He creates. Do we not have something of ourselves, talent, knowledge, personality, in everything we create?

[Hammer]

As far as the John passage regarding Christ doing what he sees the Father doing, the fact that this is in the present tense negates the common LDS interpretation, in my opinion. God was accomplishing something new through Christ, and Christ did only what He saw the Father was doing in this task. This would not mean that the Father also was born of a virgin, died on a cross, chose twelve disciples with one traitor in the mix, walked to Jerusalem and then rode in on the back of a colt, etc. At least, I wouldn't think most LDS would go so far as to say so.

What about nothing being new under the Sun. Now we have a brand new thing never before done? Does this mean the OT was wrong in this teaching of nothing new?

Eccl. 1: 9

9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Also what is likeness and image? If I am rebuiding a truck in the likeness and image of its original style, will it be different? in any way?

[rhinomelon]

Why would resurrection be such a big deal if God isn't embodied?

A great question, and the answer has many parts to it. Some of the biggies are obviously that it was a true conquering of death. It vindicated Jesus' claims to be who he said he was. It was the firstfruits of the resurrection to come. I don't really see what the resurrection of Christ would have to do with the Father having a body or not. Perhaps you could clear that up for me?

He is in everything He creates. Do we not have something of ourselves, talent, knowledge, personality, in everything we create?

That is a good point, and I think that would actually be a helpful way to think of being made in God's image and likeness. We have something of God in ourselves, but obviously not a direct correlation or exact replica. The piano pieces I compose do not have eyes or a nerdy sense of humor as I do, to make an analogy.

God can be everywhere via his Spirit. Doesn't mean He must only be a body. Have your read section 88?

I have read it, but obviously I wouldn't accept it as Scripture. And if it is God's Spirit that is really everywhere, then why not just say it is God's Spirit that is everywhere? Yet the Bible references God Himself being omnipresent ("Do I not fill heaven and earth?", etc). And even if God's Spirit is everywhere, this does not logically mean that God necessarily must have a body, either.

What about nothing being new under the Sun. Now we have a brand new thing never before done? Does this mean the OT was wrong in this teaching of nothing new?

This teaching of Ecclesiastes is not a stand-alone proclamation, but part of a commentary on what human life is like. It shouldn't be taken to refer to absolutely everything that could possibly happen (Are automobiles new, for example? What about the second quorum of seventy?). This passage certainly would not negate something like the incarnation (as LDS would no doubt have to agree).

I probably won't be around for the next few days, but I'll be sure to check back here on Monday. Good questions, and good discussion, all. And good to see you, Magyar! It seems like it's been a while since we've seen you around!

Take care, everyone

[Calm]

The Reason, in the course of planning the Creation, becomes Word.

Then, therefore, does the Word also Himself assume His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, "Let there be light." This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God

But is not the Word part of the divine nature of God and not the human? If so, then it appears that he is saying God does change.

[Hammer]

A great question, and the answer has many parts to it. Some of the biggies are obviously that it was a true conquering of death. It vindicated Jesus' claims to be who he said he was. It was the firstfruits of the resurrection to come. I don't really see what the resurrection of Christ would have to do with the Father having a body or not. Perhaps you could clear that up for me?

I had all of this answered and hit the wrong button and lost it all. I will start over, but I may do it in sections so that if I lose it again, I won't lose it all.

The Christ over came death. Does that make Him the greater God? Is He superior than His Father because He did something His Father didn't do? I don't think so. I believe Christ did exactly as He stated many times. He did nothing save He saw His Father do it first.

That is a good point, and I think that would actually be a helpful way to think of being made in God's image and likeness. We have something of God in ourselves, but obviously not a direct correlation or exact replica. The piano pieces I compose do not have eyes or a nerdy sense of humor as I do, to make an analogy.

I think you have crossed hairs. We are speaking about two separate things here. First God/Christ can be in and through all things He created and have a body. Because He did it according to John 1:1-4. Why not His Father. The second thing is, He doesn't expect His trees to be an exact replica of Himself. Only His children. Even then, they are not to be exact replicas. They are unique. All of God's creations are. They will be like Him, as taught in 1 Jn. 3: 2

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall dsee him as he is.

I have read it, but obviously I wouldn't accept it as Scripture. And if it is God's Spirit that is really everywhere, then why not just say it is God's Spirit that is everywhere? Yet the Bible references God Himself being omnipresent ("Do I not fill heaven and earth?", etc). And even if God's Spirit is everywhere, this does not logically mean that God necessarily must have a body, either.

Done. It does say God is everywhere by referring to Christ as God. And I think Christ out doing His Father by having a Body decreases His Father's station as Above His Son. Could you sight me a scripture in the Bible where God and Christ are given equality? I read many about them being One, and that to me would equate to the sameness.

This teaching of Ecclesiastes is not a stand-alone proclamation, but part of a commentary on what human life is like. It shouldn't be taken to refer to absolutely everything that could possibly happen (Are automobiles new, for example? What about the second quorum of seventy?). This passage certainly would not negate something like the incarnation (as LDS would no doubt have to agree).

I wouldn't put it in that context. Every new baby, is new under the sun. We know this is referring to the human condition, emotionally, spiritually, personality traites, needs, wants, foibles, weaknesses, missions, purposes, paths, knowledge, etc.

I probably won't be around for the next few days, but I'll be sure to check back here on Monday. Good questions, and good discussion, all. And good to see you, Magyar! It seems like it's been a while since we've seen you around!

Take care, everyone

Sorry it took me so long.