Sir, I do not quite understand your fear of people claiming trinity, but this argument has nothing to do with Trinity and I wasn't going to go there so let us proceed in truth and integrity and not twist arguments for fear of what conclusion it might lead to.  This is a very important point because it is the cause of so many errors.  One cannot follow an argument with integrity when he already has the conclusion in his mind.  He will try to bend the argument in order to make it get to the conclusion.  The proper way to proceed is to just follow the argument to wherever it leads.

|This reminds me of the argument of an old medieval christian Theologian.  He was trying to demonstrate the mercy of God and how well God thinks of us.  He say for example that wherever Human beings have raised towns and set up habitation that God is so merciful that he sends them a source of fresh water in the form of a river or a lake.  How ridiculous!  Is it not in fact the case that wherever there is a source of fresh water that human beings will go and settle there.  The water is there before the humans not vice versa.  But that is what happens when you have a conclusion even before you started pursuing an argument.  

Pastor AIO:

I agree that they are inseparable in an individual. But this includes the body also. I've just realised something. What we are arguing is not whether they are separate entities, but rather the distinction lies in their function. There is a yoruba saying: ise meta ni omo ori odo n se. A pestle has three function. It is a pounder for making pounded yam. It is a barricade for securing the door. and it is a grinder for grinding vegetables. Do these 3 functions make it three separate objects? No. So when people complain that their Ori is not good they are told that it is the same Ori that they picked from the same place as everybody else. Yet the manifestation of it differs in each individual. That manifestation called Iwa which can be translated as character and also state of being.

Ise meta ni omori odo nse
A pestle can be applied to 3 tasks
Won a f'ori re gun'yan
The head is used to pound yam
Won a f'idi re gun elu
It's base can be used to grind herbs
Won a fi agbedemeji re ti ilekun dain dain dain
It's middle part can be used to barricade the doors firmly
Thus was declared to Oriseku (the non-starter, or the defective ori) child of Ogun
Thus was declared to Ilemere (the short-lived) child of Ija
Thus was declared to Afuwape (the fulfilled destiny) child of Agbonmiregun
They went to the home of Ajalamopin to each pick themselves an Ori (destiny)
They were prescribed Ebo.
Only Afuwape tarried to comply.
Lament: "If I had known where successful people choose their Ori (destinies) that is where I would have gone to pick mine.
If I'd known where Afuwape choose his destiny from that is where I would have gone to choose mine."
Response: All Ori (destiny) is chosen at the same place, yet they unfold differently for different individuals.

olabowale:

But it is the anima that is the inner person. The one that is the personality of the person. The body houses it. It is the physical that let us know, as the symptom of the anima that is inside, which can not be seen with the naked eye. A person who gets old, though the body is breaking apart, rather shows sign of age, will still have the same personality/anima. But if his anima is unattractive as obnoxious, rude, etc, though he may projects it it still will not make him bodily unacttractive or rude to the sight, if he is a handsome person, physically.

When the Imam came he explained, not from the Koran but from someone who he called the eminent commentator on koran and hadith.  I can't recall the name, it was a long arabic name.  He said that Nafs is what drives the body, I asked,"do you mean the characteristics?" he inclined his head left and right in a comme ci comme ca way and said sort off.  He then said Ruuh was the fuel of the body.  Like a machine.  You have a car, the body, the driver is the Nafs and the fuel inside is the Ruuh.  I suggested Ruuh was breath and he responded that what did I mean by breath.  I said breath.  He said well people understand different things and have different connotations from breath so he needed to know what I meant.  In other words that was left unanswered.  Anyway he said that the engine can't run without fuel and so it is with the body without ruuh.

Another very interesting thing he said was that when the embryo is formed in the womb, after 4months God then sends the Ruuh into the body and that is when the foetus becomes a living soul.  4 months!, I thought, but I did not say anything.

 
To conclude he advised me that there are more central things to Isla.m than Nafs and Ruuh and told me about the 5 pillars.  He said that the important thing was to be aware that God is One and to worship this One God.  Nafs and Ruuh though important are incidental to the main point.

I find that hard to accept because I cannot think of anything more important than understanding oneself and the motivations that drive one, especially if they are capable of driving you either to paradise or hell.

An unattractive personality does not translate to an 'unattractive body' in that sense because the attractiveness of the body is just a matter of taste. But whatever occurs in the anima will have a correspondence in the body, human aesthetic judgements like pretty or ugly are not the issue. Contained in the Anima is the entire process from birth to old age. Growing old is not a process divorced from the Anima. Growth and decay are expressions of Anima.

olabowale:


But this argument about water and human settlement will actually be not always the norm. For right here in the USA, we have a city call Las Vegas, without any water source at all. Yet, in the middle of the desert, is where this city of several millions is situated. All the water that they use in this city, is not from a source that was indigenous to it.

Krayola:

I think meanings evolve and words mean different things to different people at different times. That's just the nature of language. Words do not inherently mean anything. . . they mean stuff based on "agreement" between a group of people. If one looks through the bible (chronologically- as in when what was written and not where it appears in the bible) and the context in which those words were used, one should expect to notice changing/evolving meaning.

For example, earlier in Jewish thought, "soul"/"spirit" was, I think, understood as the "animative" force of the body (breath, blood. .  stuff like that. .). That it was a separate entity with a "life and existence" of it's own isn't something I'm aware of that was believed in ancient pre-exile Israel/judah (the body was believed to be vital/"sacred" and even the first Jewish ideas of the afterlife were physical. . e.g The resurrection of the body). . The idea of an eternal soul independent of the body was most likely a Greek idea that , over time, developed to be the generally accepted use/meaning of the word.

Joagbaje:

The spirit is the real man. The soul is the realm of our feelings and emotions