1970s Church Pamphlet on Homosexuality

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

definition of brain:

1.
a. The portion of the vertebrate central nervous system that is enclosed within the cranium, continuous with the spinal cord, and composed of gray matter and white matter. It is the primary center for the regulation and control of bodily activities, receiving and interpreting sensory impulses, and transmitting information to the muscles and body organs. It is also the seat of consciousness, thought, memory, and emotion.
b. A functionally similar portion of the invertebrate nervous system.


The definition of mind is above

Does not look the same to me.

Well, the words don't look the same either. IOW, you are defining two different words differently. That we may use different words to describe different aspects of an organ or a system doens't mean they are really different. The definitions of muscle and strength aren't the same, but strength doesn't exist for humans without muscles; they are the same. I think that the notion of a mind apart from the brain is a religious notion (using the term religious VERY broadly) and not a scientific notion. I could be worng, of course, which is why I asked the quesiton.

[Indy Coug]

I'm no scientist, but I have a hard time understanding how our "mind" can be independent of our brain. On the other hand, there are things our brain does that are completely independent of our "mind".

Can my "mind" tell my brain to alter pituitary gland output? Can my "mind" stop my breathing while I'm dreaming? Can my "mind" stop auto-immune diseases?

Our brain is perpetually receiving and transmitting information. Some of this information reaches our conscious "mind", at which time we process that information. How that information is processed and coalesces in our "mind" is a very individualized process. Our mind can't stop the reception of the information and it has limited ability to cause or stop the brain from transmitting information.

So what's the problem with saying "sexuality of any type is all in a person's mind"?

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm no scientist, but I have a hard time understanding how our "mind" can be independent of our brain. On the other hand, there are things our brain does that are completely independent of our "mind".

Can my "mind" tell my brain to alter pituitary gland output? Can my "mind" stop my breathing while I'm dreaming? Can my "mind" stop auto-immune diseases?

Our brain is perpetually receiving and transmitting information. Some of this information reaches our conscious "mind", at which time we process that information. How that information is processed and coalesces in our "mind" is a very individualized process.

So what's the problem with saying "sexuality of any type is all in a person's mind"?

My understanding of the common use of the word "mind" is that it is the conscious portion of the brain. Therefore, it is a part of the brain's function, but not the entirety of the brain's function.

Therefore, if "sexuality of any type" is controlled by the brain (which I think we all agree on), it is not necessarily the same as saying "sexuality of any type" is controlled by the mind.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

My understanding of the common use of the word "mind" is that it is the conscious portion of the brain. Therefore, it is a part of the brain's function, but not the entirety of the brain's function.

Therefore, if "sexuality of any type" is controlled by the brain (which I think we all agree on), it is not necessarily the same as saying "sexuality of any type" is controlled by the mind.

"In our mind" does not necessarily equate to "Controlled by our mind"

If I put my hand on the burner, the pain is all in my mind, but I can't tell my mind that it doesn't actually hurt or not to pull my hand away.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

"In our mind" does not necessarily equate to "Controlled by our mind"

Is that not the inference by the phrase? Why not be more accurate and say it's controlled by our brain?

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by creekster

Well, the words don't look the same either. IOW, you are defining two different words differently. That we may use different words to describe different aspects of an organ or a system doens't mean they are really different. The definitions of muscle and strength aren't the same, but strength doesn't exist for humans without muscles; they are the same. I think that the notion of a mind apart from the brain is a religious notion (using the term religious VERY broadly) and not a scientific notion. I could be worng, of course, which is why I asked the quesiton.

I guess the relevance of which word you choose has to do with how it was used in the pamphlet and by Indy. The phrase :

Sexuality of any type is all in a person's mind, so why should homosexuality be any different?

Contrary to what we often see on this site, the connotation of the word mind is very different than brain. Minds can be changed. Is this also true for involuntary brain function?

Indy came off as flippant. He may not have intended it but by saying "Sexuality of any type is ALL in a person's mind" he comes across that way.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Is that not the inference by the phrase? Why not be more accurate and say it's controlled by our brain?

Because I'm not a lawyer drafting a legal document?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by BYU71

When I read these things the first thing I usually think of is why are we and the southern evangelicals at such odds. Our belief systems are so close. I guess it boils down to a battle of who is right when it comes to being closest to God. That battle transcends all the things we are alike in. The belief in who is right is a religious thing and the common things we have are cultural that spring forth from being very conservative when it comes to religious interpretations.

I do think we are more tolerant when it comes to religion than they are. I hear a lot more pleas for lets get along and inclusiveness of non-believers than I used to.

I think what it really means is that during the 1950-1970s was where our church took an ultraconservative trend that made us closer to the evangelicals on many things that aren't really doctrinal. I think trend has now run its course and we've become far more moderate on social issues than we were when you or even I was growing up.