@FMF

My suggestion assumes that discussions could include the question of whether the spirit and the soul are interchangeable terms and/or whether they are different ways of looking at the same phenomena. Just one example.

But some distrust has developed between us. I understand that you would want the purpose of the Forum to lean towards Humanism. And that kind of direction would give you the ground to say theists are somewhat changing the mandate of the Forum.

ie. "Excuse me. The purpose of this Spirituality Forum is not about the nature of God but the nature of human beings."

@sonship said
But a Christian such as I would mention that the soul of man and the spirit of man are not the same thing. For the Bible speaks of the dividing asunder of soul and spirit.

This would be one of the archetypal and perennial topics of debate on the Spirituality Forum under the new tagline. Christians could still talk about how "the Bible speaks of the dividing asunder of soul and spirit".

@sonship said
But some distrust has developed between us. I understand that you would want the purpose of the Forum to lean towards Humanism.

I think Humanism belongs on a Spirituality Forum in the same way as Christianity does.

@sonship said
that kind of direction would give you the ground to say theists are somewhat changing the mandate of the Forum.

Theists and theist ideas would still be the main nuts and bolts and the cogs turning on the Forum, I have no doubt about it. What reason would there be for that not to be the case?

@sonship said
ie. "Excuse me. The purpose of this Spirituality Forum is not about the nature of God but the nature of human beings."

For theists, the "nature of God" is fully intertwined with discussion of "the soul". On what basis would the "nature of God" be precluded? Are you being for real here with these objections?

@SecondSon

And just how do you think that would change the nature of the debate?

Think about the dichotomy the tag establishes.

"Debate and general discussion concerning the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things."

On one side the human parts.
On the other side material or physical things.

Where is there room for God?
Oh, there is room for HUMAN parts - a leaning towards Humanism.
Perfect for a more atheist friendly forum, I must admit.

But maybe Moslems, Orthodox Jews, Christians, Bahai, want to talk about not only human parts but the nature of God.

@sonship said
Think about the dichotomy the tag establishes.

Dichotomies are the lifeblood of debate and discussion.

@sonship said
But maybe Moslems, Orthodox Jews, Christians, Bahai, want to talk about not only human parts but the nature of God.

Without humans and "human parts" there is nobody to discuss "the nature of God" and the meaning of God to humans. None of this is sidelined or excluded by the proposed new tagline. I don't see how Moslems, Orthodox Jews, Christians, or Bahai would be restricted in any way by it.

@FMF

Dichotomies are the lifeblood of debate and discussion.

I am not against dicotomy. I point out the dangers of false dichotomy.

"All we have is human parts on one side verses material and physical things."

How can the Theist have any participation? As soon as we speak of the Triune God or even the Unitarian speaks of God, we're likely to get -

"Ahem. On this forum the purpose is about material things or the non-material parts of humans." Theism gets de-legitimized. .

@sonship said
On one side the human parts.
On the other side material or physical things.

Where is there room for God?

It would still be the "Spirituality Forum". How would there no "room for God"? Wouldn't discussion of God come under discussion about spirituality and 'the human spirit or soul and non-material things'? Your objections seem rather obtuse.

@sonship said
How can the Bible thumper have any fun?

I would suggest they would get their fun from talking about their religion, about their holy literature, about the soul, about the nature of God, about "sin", about "forgiveness", about "salvation" and "damnation", about prayer, good works, human nature, the human condition, ancient history, competing religions, about morality, homosexuality, marriage, raising children, culture etc. etc.

@sonship said
But some distrust has developed between us.

Well, as you have stated at least three times with great ostentatiousness, you'd rather be dead than have my intellect and beliefs. You'd rather die than be me. So you are a fairly eccentric and unimpressive person to be talking to, it has to be said. But I don't see there being an issue of "trust" per se.

@FMF

It would still be the "Spirituality Forum". How would there no "room for God"? Wouldn't discussion of God come under discussion about spirituality and 'the human spirit or soul and non-material things'? Your objections seem rather obtuse.

That's the subtlety of your suggestion - God is just circumscribed by the non-material part of human beings.

The way I see it, your suggestion channels all Spirituality discussion towards Humanism. I admit that it is a more atheist friendly arrangement. Because of that, you would have ground to object that theists are at least someone off the topics purposed by the Forum.

Before the spirit and soul or man you have the creation. Where did that come from if man and his spirit and soul are nowhere to be found? Then we must talk about a maximal spirit or maximal soul or a maximal Person. But that maximal person is not a human being.

Subtly Humanism gains the upper hand of "relevancy".

Now maybe you are not being deliberately sneaky. But some of us could see trouble coming a mile away with -

"Human non-material components verses material and physical things is the arena of discussion here. Your talk of God is somewhat out of the ball park. We assume there is only man involved in Spirituality."

@sonship said
God is just circumscribed by the non-material part of human beings.

No, God is not "circumscribed" by the new tagline.

Theists can clearly continue to talk about the supernatural, religion, and the life after. Without the "non-material part of human beings" there would be no "nature of God" to perceive and discuss.

But the "non-material part of human beings" is there, why?

Because it's a spirituality forum and religion and the supernatural and everlasting life are par for the course but just part of what's available for debate and discussion.

@FMF

Well, as you have stated at least three times with great ostentatiousness, you'd rather be dead than have my intellect and beliefs. You'd rather die than be me. So you are a fairly eccentric and unimpressive person to be talking to, it has to be said. But I don't see there being an issue of "trust" per se.

That was an unkind thing for me to say. But I can guarantee you that I felt the need to say it because it was proceeded by something you said to me VERY insulting.

Now you don't regard that because as one poster put it - your problem is that you think that your own poop doesn't stink.

You have brought this up a number of times. And I'd like to be at peace and apologize. But there is abject failure on your part to realize how deeply, deeply insulting can be some of the stuff you rattle off to critique Christian faith.