What Is The Holy Spirit

In your mind, is "it" pantheistic moreso than monotheistic? Is the mountain itself "spiritual"? Is the little bird? In my mind I see the Holy Spirit as a creative force that is greater than the sum of what "it "creates. .

Jar, on the other hand, has positioned himself both as a believer(or at least a recognized member of a church) and yet also beholden to logic, reason, and reality.

nwr writes: Those do not contradict one another. You seem to see them as contradictory (your use of "yet"). I never saw them as contradictory.

We all see things uniquely, nwr. I remember years ago when you used to show up in the EvC chatroom where jar resided and have chats with us. IIRC you were a math teacher...or am I mistaken?

Anyway, my basic argument will unwind when i get more time. In the meanwhile, Happy New Year everyone! woot

IIRC you were a math teacher...or am I mistaken?

Mathematics and computer science.

In my mind I see the Holy Spirit as a creative force that is greater than the sum of what "it "creates.

Since it is a fictitious concept you are free to describe the fantasy in whatever terms your mind cares to create.

Not the reality, of course, since the concept has none, but your holy spirit is just a pretty tweetering call in your lost and lonely soul beckoning you to it only to discover, up close, its evil. A truly evil concept. Like your priest-created smoke blown around the temple to hide the stench this holy spirit is priest-created smoke and mirrors to hide the subterfuge of the holy of holies. Blood and death, as usual, for the blasphemy of truth.

I remember a few years ago there was a fad with plenty of memes and a website set up where people, as you would expect especially kids (that’s a rather relative view, isn’t it? At my age anyone younger than 50 is a kid.) Anyway, a fad and website where people could leave personal messages, selfies and videos, blaspheming the holy spirit. For a while it ran pretty hot and heavy with millions committing that most unforgivable of all sins against god, in public, openly for all the gods and everyone else to see. Ahh, good times.

There were repercussions, as expected. Together with being pissed-off at us heathens for this most blatant, finger-in-your-face sacrilege, as well as for gay marriage and abortion, and yeah, treason against Trump, the Tribal War God of Abraham reached out with his holy spirit and has struck the world with the year 2020! And Corona!

“But he loves you.”

Phat writes: Lets close out the year arguing about the practical implications of "giving it all up".

We already know the practical implications. The Early Church did it. Many religious communities have done it since then and many still do it.

Phat writes: Despite your overall mockery of apologists, this one has as good of an answer as I would give.

So bring it here.

Phat writes: You will take the literal words of the book (and the character Jesus in the book) as your argument.

Not at all. See above. Many people who don't accept the book give it all up.

Phat writes: I do not see Jesus expecting everyone whom He talks to to do everything that He says to each individual as a collective instruction.

But I have pointed out to you many times that it is NOT an individual instruction. See the widow who gave her only two mites. See the early church. See the widow who fed Elijah.

Phat writes: I also do not relate to Jesus the character any more than I would or even could relate to the character Frodo...or Long John Silver.

I know you don't. You relate to the character that you made up, who coincidentally has the same name but not the same principles, who doesn't ask you to do anything hard.

Phat writes: If Karl Marx...long dead...told you that from each according to his ability to each according to their needs, I wouldn't expect you to listen to that either.

I believe in "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" because it's a good principle. I don't care who said it. I also believe in much of what Jesus said because they are good principles, not because of who said it.

You, on the other hand, have created a personality cult around the messenger and ignored His message.

Phat writes: ringo writes: I have been very clear: A follower of Christ would be glad to do what He asked. The disciples did it. The early Church did it. But you are a follower of a "Jesus" that you have made up in your head - one that is very careful not to ask you to do anything you don't want to do. Again, you never mention the modern church.

On the contrary, I was specifically contrasting the early church with your modern cult.

Phat writes: Why are you puzzled that very few of us would do it?

I'm not puzzled at all. Few of you would do it because you're fair-weather "Christians". You don't trust your God to take care of you.

Phat writes: Is that why you stopped believing?

I stopped believing because the beliefs are nonsense.

Phat writes: Ringo is a bit more puzzling because3 hee used to be a believer....I'm thinking a rather serious one...and then became disillusioned for two basic reasons. 1) Logic and Evidence took obvious precedence. 2) Most "Christians" whom he knew failed to live up to the standard(which he considers a no-brainer)

No, most Christians that I knew and know (don't forget that almost everybody I know is a Christian) are better people than I am. Most of them would acknowledge that they are not doing as much as they should. I'm only arguing against the raving-lunatic fundamentalists who have the audacity to deny what Jesus plainly said.

Phat writes: Jar, on the other hand, has positioned himself both as a believer(or at least a recognized member of a church) and yet also beholden to logic, reason, and reality.

Everybody should be beholden to logic, reason and reality.

If God exists, He didn't give you a head just so that you could wear a crown of thorns that you got out of Crackerjacks. He wanted you to use it.

ringo writes: We already know the practical implications. The Early Church did it. Many religious communities have done it since then and many still do it.

Im asking you to think of the logical and practical implications of a whole country doing it...and what it would mean. I( refuse to give up my private property to some government plan to eliminate poverty at my expense. If the rich get to skip out, so do I. It would be they who would support the basic lifestyle that I believe in. Giving all my money to the poor wont help me without the help (voluntary not mandatory) of the upper middle class.

ringo writes: Many people who don't accept the book give it all up.

They are usually liberal globalist extremists. Read my lips. Private property is an inalienable right. There are problems with common property held by a government if everyone was forced to give up their assets to the state.

Do the math and explain to me how I would maintain a decent lifestyle by giving it all up. And why I should be the guy in line ahead of you to do it?

Phat writes: They are usually liberal globalist extremists.

A liberal extremist, wow. What do they do, tell rioting fascists that they're extremely disappointed in them?

Read my lips. Private property is an inalienable right. There are problems with common property held by a government if everyone was forced to give up their assets to the state. Do the math and explain to me how I would maintain a decent lifestyle by giving it all up. And why I should be the guy in line ahead of you to do it?

You persistently just refuse to understand what is being said. (How many times have you heard that?)

1. It's your bible that commands you to give everything up and follow him. We just point that out because that's what it says. No body blames you for a minute for not doing that, it would be utterly stupid. But know that that is what is expected of you if believe the bible - not just the parts you like or prefer.

2. The government owns huge amounts of property on your behalf paid for by you. Roads, government buildings, airfields, military bases, schools and what all. It's a good thing, it makes society work. The argument isn't about them having everything and you having nothing, it's about how wealth is shared.

Undoubtably people like you should have more and Bezos should have less. It's beyond argument; pretty much every economist and social researcher in the world will tell you that the more unequal a society is, the more unhappy it is. No-one argues for total equality of income anymore, that's madness, but less inequality is worth fighting for.

If your (and my) country really wants to pursue happiness it needs to reduce inequality or wealth.

During Trump's regime he and his wealthy mates have got richer and the poor have got poorer, yet somehow his working class supporters thought he was on their side. You can always rely on stupid.

Phat writes: Im asking you to think of the logical and practical implications of a whole country doing it...and what it would mean.

Nobody said anything about the whole country doing it. It's an instruction to believers.

Phat writes: I( refuse to give up my private property to some government plan to eliminate poverty at my expense.

No, you don't refuse to pay your taxes. You refuse to follow Jesus.

Phat writes: If the rich get to skip out, so do I.

Not if you want to be "saved", you don't.

Phat writes: Giving all my money to the poor wont help me without the help (voluntary not mandatory) of the upper middle class.

Well, of course the whole middle class would be helping.

But you're missing the point. God is supposedly helping too - but you don't have faith in Him.

Phat writes: ringo writes: Many people who don't accept the book give it all up. They are usually liberal globalist extremists.

Monks are liberal global extremists? Don't be silly. And stop wallowing in that right-wing propaganda.

Phat writes: Read my lips. Private property is an inalienable right.

No it isn't. You have no "right" to grab as much as you can while somebody else doesn't have enough to live.

Phat writes: There are problems with common property held by a government if everyone was forced to give up their assets to the state.

Again, not what we're talking about.

Phat writes: Do the math and explain to me how I would maintain a decent lifestyle by giving it all up.

I've answered that many times: Jesus will supposedly take care of you.

Phat writes: And why I should be the guy in line ahead of you to do it?

Because you supposedly believe in Jesus.

So says the person who won't even show us they have read and understand the Gospel According to Matthew despite a $100 bribe.

Phat, you were given this assignment because of posts like this. Stop making your philosophy of life all about you to the exclusion of others. Otherwise, you will never find love in this life and there will be no second chances.

You should be ashamed to have to be lectured about Christianity by (what you would call) a non-believing heretic.

I hate having to pick on you, but that means I still have a shred of faith you may understand eventually. Otherwise, I would not even try.

Edited by anglagard, : replace the last word care with try, it's more accurate since I will always have some hope.

May I remind you that I lost my Mother on December 20th and have been in mourning. I dont need any bribes...I will get around to your challenge soon.

There is no grand consensus on the philosophy of life. Not everyone will agree.

Anyone who believes in a uniform belief does not understand reality.

We still haven't had anyone explain just what the "Holy Spirit" is. Trinitarian Christianity Doctrine is pretty clear on what the "Holy Spirit" is NOT but filled with contradictory declarations on what the "Holy Spirit" really is.

It's a demented religious fantasy. We know this. Why is there a question otherwise?

Yes, that is what you say but others claim there is some substance.