and the connection would be?

I guess I'm an anomaly then. Though I do not expect to be the only one.

It might be easier to make a case for babies being born without thoughts if those babies, in addition to not having a language, had no sight, hearing, smell, feeling, taste, or sense of balance. How often does this happen?

Would you have us believe that what you see or hear is a "feeling"?

Language is certainly not necessary for thought, though thoughts are often shaped by it. When one learns to do true speed reading, the last, and most difficult step to learn, is that of no longer pronouncing the words in one's mind. The speed reader must allow those "words" (patterned symbols on paper) to pass directly to thoughts without the use of any verbalization or words. In other words, when one sees "tree" on the paper, one sees a picture of what that represents in place of representing that concept with a word. I call this step of speed reading "passing the sound barrier." It is very hard to separate the verbalization from the process...but once you can accomplish this, you can read immensely faster. I was able to achieve 1500 WPM, whereas before passing the sound barrier I could read a maximum of about 500 WPM. Any true speed reader should recognize the capacity to think without words. Of course, a case can also be made that without those words in the first place, the thoughts would have not existed in the mind. However, if a baby sees a tree, can the baby not interpret the image at all for lack of knowing the word "tree"?

For another case in point, study the phenomenon that sometimes occurs between twins. I have witnessed this myself. Two identical twin brothers, about two years old, used their own language to communicate with each other. I heard the words clearly, but they were not words any one of us had ever heard. No one knew those words except those twins. For those twins, just two or three syllables seemed to carry the meaning of a full sentence for us. As they grew older, they learned English, forgot their "brother tongue," and now laugh with the rest of us about those days. Where did they get their language? How could language develop without language? How could it develop without thought?

I'm not the only witness to this phenomenon. It is estimated to occur in about 40% of identical twins, so this seems hardly to be an "anomaly" among those in this group. Some parents feel their twins need speech therapy as a result of this, as indicated in the following quote I found online:



(To be continued in another post...though perhaps not right away.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

My, Arnold. If you had simply quoted the context, my point would be clear:



I was wondering why you cut this off and only posted a portion of a phrase. The things in bold bring out the importance of decisions, the point I made.

It's clear you and gc are using the words "thoughts" differently. In the sense of developing character, what you're saying makes sense. Animals don't develop character, but they have thoughts in the sense that gc is speaking of.

The concept of words and language is an interesting one. Deaf people do thing in terms of language, but their language is visual, not spoken, and their words are not words as we, who think verbally, think of them. But linguists have identified that all the constructs present in verbal language and thought are present in theirs. If they have a stroke which involves the language part of the brain, for example, they can't sign. Which makes sense, if you think about it, but for a long time sign language was not considered to be a language.

Just an aside.

Answer my question first, then I'll answer yours. Actually, if you dig in the SOP to find the answer to mine, you will find the answer to yours at the same time.

If you look at the wider context of the writings of EGW, you will find that Christians also read the Bible, pray, eat fruits, exercise, breathe fresh air, and drink clean water. While true, none of those "make up the moral character."

You are not practicing what you preach. You have been trying to convince us for a while that everything we can know of God can be found in the 33 years that Jesus walked the earth, based on a couple of SOP quotes. The formula is simple: all X has been revealed in Y.

Here, we have a similarly simple formula: thoughts + feelings = moral character. She is very clear. Yes, there are other things involved in the Christian life, but what constitutes character is as clear as 1 + 2 = 3.

But you're confusing yourself with all the other stuff surrounding the statement. "The thoughts and feelings combined make up the moral character." There are other things to consider, but character = thoughts + feelings.

Some might even say you are adding to God's word: The thoughts and feelings combined with moral decisions make up the moral character.

The following insights shed light on the topic:

A change will be seen in the character, the habits, the pursuits. The contrast will be clear and decided between what they have been and what they are. The character is revealed, not by occasional good deeds and occasional misdeeds, but by the tendency of the habitual words and acts. (SC 57)

Any one act, either good or evil, does not form the character; but thoughts and feelings indulged prepare the way for acts and deeds of the same kind. It is . . . by a repetition of acts that habits are established and character confirmed. (CG 199)

It is not through one act that the character is formed, but by a repetition of acts that habits are established and character confirmed. (ST 4-30-1894)

Character does not come by chance. It is not determined by one out-burst of temper, one step in the wrong direction. It is the repetition of the act that causes it to become habit, and molds the character either for good or for evil. (CG 164)

It is the character we ourselves develop, not what our parents developed, that will determine our eternal destiny in judgment. Traits are neutral. Whether we develop good or bad traits depends on our relationship to Jesus. Tendencies, however, are not neutral. We inherit tendencies that tempt us from within to be unlike Jesus. These tendencies, however, will not count against us in judgment. Again, it is what we ourselves do as we interact with them that will determine our eternal destiny in judgment. Just because they tempt us, it does not mean we are guilty or that we require the atoning blood of Jesus. It is not a sin to be tempted.

"The harvest of life is character, and it is this that determines destiny, both for this life and for the life to come. The harvest is a reproduction of the seed sown. Every seed yields fruit after its kind. So it is with the traits of character we cherish. Selfishness, self-love, self-esteem, self-indulgence, reproduce themselves; and the end is wretchedness and ruin. "He that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." Galatians 6:8. Love, sympathy, and kindness yield fruitage of blessing, a harvest that is imperishable. {CG 162.4}

animals do have "language", and visual language is still language in my opinion.

in fact, come to think of it, the baby goats and sheep born here are born already capable of "speech". they are more developed than a human newborn.

but it occurs to me some may not be conscious of their thoughts.

thats ok. you are the one who saw some kind of connection not i.