"The holy spirit told me"

[Zzyzx]

.
From another thread:

. . . when a believer feels strongly about anything religious, they will claim it is because the Holy Spirit told them so. They will say this about one thing, and then about something completely opposite a few months later. The Holy Sprirt "tells" one person one thing and the next another. It is my opinion, and I can see no way to think anything else, that believers just don't know how else to interpret their convictions that they arrived upon by completely natural thought processes than to claim it was some divine revelation.

"The holy spirit told me" must sound much more authoritative to fellow believers than "I just thought it up in my head."

Is there any evidence that a "spirit" (holy or otherwise) tells anyone anything?

By its nature such a claim MUST be a testimonial and must be unverifiable. Are unverifiable testimonials to be taken as truthful and accurate? Are some to be regarded as such and others not? If so, why accept some and not others?

[sleepyhead]

Hello,

I think there is plenty of existence that instinct tells animals what to do. Is there a difference between instinct and the HS?

[bjs]

Ludwig Wittgenstein used the analogy of a beetle which is sometimes called “Wittgenstein’s Beetle.� In the analogy everyone has a box which contains what they call a “beetle.� However, no one is allowed to look in anyone else’s box. Each person can only look in his or her box. I know that what I see in my box is what I call a beetle, but I can never be sure that what is in your box – what you call a beetle – is anything like what is in my box. Since no one else can see what is in my box the word “beetle� ultimately comes to mean “the thing in my box.�

The analogy points out that I can never know what is in another person’s mind, and I can never know what another person experiences. I know what I experience and I can know the words that you use to describe your experiences. However, I cannot know, much less prove, what you have experienced. All experiences are by their nature unverifiable.

So, where does this leave us? Each person must decide for themselves how they will approach all these unverifiable testimonies about other people’s experiences. A common answer is to say, “I accept as true experiences that are similar to what I have experienced.� However this raises the question of how dissimilar an experience can be from my personal experiences before I reject it, and I have to establish (at least in my own mind) why my experiences are more reliable than other people’s.

Personally, I suppose that I base what I testimonies I accept on who is giving the testimony. If I know a person to be reliable and honest in general I tend to assume that how they describe their experiences is reliable, even if it varies from my own experiences. Each of us is left to develop our own approach to this unanswerable dilemma.

[mwtech]

Hello,

I think there is plenty of existence that instinct tells animals what to do. Is there a difference between instinct and the HS?

There is very much a difference. The main one being that instinct tends to be very consistent among species. The very large majority of babies are born knowing to suckle. The vast majority of birds are born with migrational instinct. The HS, on the other hand, tells baptists one thing, pentacostals another thing, presbetaryians another thing, and nazarenes something else.

Another difference is that there is observational evidence that gives us reason to believe we know why certain animals have certain instincts. It has to do with natural selection. Babies who suckle when they are born live, babies who don't die. When the babies who don't suckle all die, more and more babies are born with the instinct to suckle. Over time, we are left with most babies instinctually suckling.
There is an interesting experiment that can show a kind of small scale learned behavior in chimpanzees.

"They started with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, they hung a banana on a string with a set of stairs placed under it. Before long, a monkey went to the stairs and started to climb towards the banana. As soon as he started up the stairs, the psychologists sprayed all of the other monkeys with ice cold water. After a while, another monkey made an attempt to obtain the banana. As soon as his foot touched the stairs, all of the other monkeys were sprayed with ice cold water. It's wasn't long before all of the other monkeys would physically prevent any monkey from climbing the stairs. Now, the psychologists shut off the cold water, removed one monkey from the cage and replaced it with a new one. The new monkey saw the banana and started to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attacked him. After another attempt and attack, he discovered that if he tried to climb the stairs, he would be assaulted. Next they removed another of the original five monkeys and replaced it with a new one. The newcomer went to the stairs and was attacked. The previous newcomer took part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, they replaced a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey tried to climb the stairs, he was attacked. The monkeys had no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they were beating any monkey that tried. After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys had ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approached the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been around here.""
This experiment mostly shows how peer pressure can influence behavior, but it also exemplifies how behavioral changes can translate into the next generation. It is analagous to how instincts come about over a long period of time.

It has nothing to do with a ghost. The feeling people have when they claim the holy spirit has told them something is the same feeling I get when I have just figured out some puzzle I've been thinking about for a few days. It is just a sudden moment of clarity, one that I have no problem with attributing to my rational mind. The difference with religious claims is that they get this feeling about something pertaining to religion, or something that they prayed (thought) about before and conclude that some divine being must care enough about them to kindly pop that idea right into their heads for them.

[mwtech]

Personally, I suppose that I base what I testimonies I accept on who is giving the testimony. If I know a person to be reliable and honest in general I tend to assume that how they describe their experiences is reliable, even if it varies from my own experiences. Each of us is left to develop our own approach to this unanswerable dilemma.

Well, it isn't as if most people are faking their testimony intentionally. Plenty of religious claims are made in sincere belief, by honest people. But, how are you to say who is delusional and who is not?
I don't want to use the term delusional and make you think that all Christians who "have the spirit" are mentally ill, but by definition, delusion fits the description of these "divine interactions"
The criteria being:
-certainty (held with absolute conviction)
-incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
-impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)
I have never met someone who truly thinks they've had a revelation from the HS who lacked certainty in what they were "told". I have never met anyone who could be convinced that their revelation was untrue or not of the HS. Taking into account the many discrepant and even contradictory "revelations" they cannot all be true, and most of them are extraordinary in nature.
This belief is a delusion. Now, just because someone is a good, honest person does not cause what he wholeheartedly believes was the HS to be any closer to true than someone who is intentionally trying to lie to you.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Is there any evidence that a "spirit" (holy or otherwise) tells anyone anything?

Aside from the individual's claims? Not that I have ever saw

Are unverifiable testimonials to be taken as truthful and accurate?

MUST they be taken as such? No. CAN they be taken as such? Yes. Should they be taken as such? Depends on the person being asked so I would say NO. There's no more proof that the holy spirit told anyone anything than if 'the voices in their head' told them.

...why accept some and not others?

One only accepts those that fit their belief mold - others are rejected.

[bluethread]

This experiment mostly shows how peer pressure can influence behavior, but it also exemplifies how behavioral changes can translate into the next generation. It is analagous to how instincts come about over a long period of time.

That's kind of like a group of posters on a website speaking about a singular activity of "believers", which implies all who believe, feeding off of one another to paint a stereo type that supports the preferred view of the group. I don't wish to throw cold water on this lovefest, but I would like to climb the stairs, ie argue that not all views of professed revelations from Ruach HaChedosh(THS) see them as unquestionable. I know that is the view of many Penticostals, but the Scriptures tell us to compare such revelations with both HaTorah and future events. If the revelation does not match up with either one, it is a capital offense. So, when someone says, "The holy spirit told me." It is appropriate to ask whether that person would be willing to bet their life on that. Of course, if one is not willing to accept Torah, using that approach would be disingenuous. The non "believer" can just simply say, I don't believe it.

[bjs]

Personally, I suppose that I base what I testimonies I accept on who is giving the testimony. If I know a person to be reliable and honest in general I tend to assume that how they describe their experiences is reliable, even if it varies from my own experiences. Each of us is left to develop our own approach to this unanswerable dilemma.

Well, it isn't as if most people are faking their testimony intentionally. Plenty of religious claims are made in sincere belief, by honest people. But, how are you to say who is delusional and who is not?
I don't want to use the term delusional and make you think that all Christians who "have the spirit" are mentally ill, but by definition, delusion fits the description of these "divine interactions"
The criteria being:
-certainty (held with absolute conviction)
-incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
-impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)
I have never met someone who truly thinks they've had a revelation from the HS who lacked certainty in what they were "told". I have never met anyone who could be convinced that their revelation was untrue or not of the HS. Taking into account the many discrepant and even contradictory "revelations" they cannot all be true, and most of them are extraordinary in nature.
This belief is a delusion. Now, just because someone is a good, honest person does not cause what he wholeheartedly believes was the HS to be any closer to true than someone who is intentionally trying to lie to you.

By these criteria almost all experiences, no matter how mundane, would have to be called “delusional.�
Certainty: Most of us are fairly certain that our own experiences are trustworthy.
Incorrigibility: There are circumstances in which we might question are own experiences and memories, but those are extreme circumstances that require compelling evidence that is rarely available in life. Excluding those rare instances when compelling evidence causes us to question our experiences, rational people are unlikely to doubt their own experiences.
Impossibility of falsity of content: This takes us back to the question of what is possible. Without begging the question – that is, without assume that there is not a Holy Spirit capable of communicating with people – how do we establish that such communications are implausible? How do we establish what is “bizarre� without essentially saying, “Anything which I have not personally experienced should be called bizarre.�

The people you have known must be markedly different from those I have known. Most claim very few “revelations� from the Spirit, and I have never heard of any “revelations� that contradict one another.

Finally, I did mention people being “reliable� as well as “honest.� I recognize that people can be mistaken. Therefore I tend to ask if the person in question the type of person likely to make such mistakes, or if this person tends to be able to sort out reality from fantasy.

[Zzyzx]

.

Personally, I suppose that I base what I testimonies I accept on who is giving the testimony. If I know a person to be reliable and honest in general I tend to assume that how they describe their experiences is reliable, even if it varies from my own experiences. Each of us is left to develop our own approach to this unanswerable dilemma.

How does that work with people you do NOT know and/or people whose identity is unknown testifying about something of importance? What if their testimony contains inconsistencies and contradictions?

If unknown people from long ago wrote their opinions and claimed experiences with certain "gods" are their testimonials to be regarded as "reliable and honest?" Does that apply to those who worship competing "gods" or just to those who favor a chosen "god?"

[sleepyhead]

[Replying to post 5 by mwtech]
Hello mwtech,

you>>>There is very much a difference. The main one being that instinct tends to be very consistent among species. The very large majority of babies are born knowing to suckle. The vast majority of birds are born with migrational instinct. The HS, on the other hand, tells baptists one thing, pentacostals another thing, presbetaryians another thing, and nazarenes something else.<<<

Instinct also provides guidance with regards to how animals live within there social structure. For humans it provides teachings which will help them live in their social structure.

you>>> Another difference is that there is observational evidence that gives us reason to believe we know why certain animals have certain instincts. It has to do with natural selection. Babies who suckle when they are born live, babies who don't die. When the babies who don't suckle all die, more and more babies are born with the instinct to suckle. Over time, we are left with most babies instinctually suckling.<<<

So we agree that instinct is also present in humans. Why is it difficult to believe that instinct will also provide information to an individual which will help him fit in to his social structure.


>>>This experiment mostly shows how peer pressure can influence behavior, but it also exemplifies how behavioral changes can translate into the next generation. It is analagous to how instincts come about over a long period of time.<<<

No argument there.

you>>> It has nothing to do with a ghost.<<<

Based on there beliefs they define it as the HG, and that also lends a fgeeling of infalibility to it. The debate topic is:
"Is there any evidence that a "spirit" (holy or otherwise) tells anyone anything?" I'm not claiming it is a spirit. I'm claiming that there is another posibility besides Christians making it up.

As an interesting side fact we reincarnationists are all told by the HS/instinct that we had been someone noteable during a previous lifetime.