Gifts from the 'Holy Spirit'?

[Zzyzx]

Gifts from the 'Holy Spirit'?

It is not uncommon in these threads for Christians to claim they receive (something) from a supernatural 'spirit' (supposedly a part of 'god').

The Church functions by the Holy Spirit in the individual lives of believers. Every believer has been given gifts from the Holy Spirit. It is through these gifts that the Church functions. See (1 Cor. 12-14) (Rom. 12:1-16) and (Eph. 4:4-16).

So, the believers, Christians, have the Spirit of God and the Word of God to determine and measure.

What 'gifts', exactly, have Christians received from the 'spirit'?


Christians seem to be about average in personal characteristics and abilities. If they have been 'helped' or 'benefited' in some way, what were / are they without the 'gifts' – a basket case?

If someone gets help to come up to average, they must have been well below average to start with.

It appears as though many Muslims are more committed to their religion, their rituals, their 'god' than Christians. Does this indicate that the 'holy spirit' gives Muslims more 'gifts' than Christians?

[bluegreenearth]

I haven't been following all of the thread. Do you want to examine a personal experience or are you looking to establish a critical examination of the claim of assistance by the holy spirit in general as made by Christians? Or both? My approach so far in this thread has been for the latter, obviously, but I suppose it would apply to you on a personal level as well.

If there is no logical way for me to determine if a personal experience was caused by the Holy Spirit or just a case of mistaken attribution, then I'm not sure how anyone else could manage to make that determination. So, in that sense, the examination applies to both.

My recommendation from the start would be to be honest with yourself. Did you want some sort of experience with the holy spirit? What were you expecting? Did you have doubts and if so why?

In addition to what is described in the Bible, other Christians around me would testify to their experiences with the Holy Spirit. Those Christians would received positive reinforcement in the form of admiration from the rest of the congregation. Accordingly, I desired to have my own experience with the Holy Spirit. As was previously explained, my expectation was informed by the Scriptures and other Christians. The doubts I had are the same as I have now; how to distinguish between an actual experience of the Holy Spirit and a mistaken belief that an experience was caused by the Holy Spirit.

From a scriptural examination we see that the holy spirit is Jehovah God's active force. Something we can't see but that produces results we can see. So the holy spirit was used to create the heavens and earth and everything in them. It was also used to inform God's people through the prophets. It was used by the disciples of Christ in demonstrating God's favor for the Christian congregation, for example, at Pentecost 33 CE as was foretold by the prophet Joel hundreds of years earlier. (Joel 2:28-29 ; Acts 2:1-14)

It was used to bring people back to life and to put people to death. You may be familiar with what Paul said, interestingly, that certain works would be discontinued. (1 Corinthians 13:1-13) Some think that drinking poison and handling snakes is accomplished through holy spirit but Mark 16:17-18 are in fact spurious. They don't appear in earlier manuscripts.

I'm compelled by intellectual honesty to remain skeptical of such claims from the Bible because they cannot be demonstrated and have no implicit empirical basis. Therefore, those stories are not particularly helpful in the investigation of whether the Holy Spirit actually exists or not.

[DavidLeon]

If there is no logical way for me to determine if a personal experience was caused by the Holy Spirit or just a case of mistaken attribution, then I'm not sure how anyone else could manage to make that determination. So, in that sense, the examination applies to both.

Right. Okay. So, in that sense you can't say either way. No point in trying. You can speculate regarding the scenario and you can be inclined to doubt but you can't really say either way.

My recommendation from the start would be to be honest with yourself. Did you want some sort of experience with the holy spirit? What were you expecting? Did you have doubts and if so why?

In addition to what is described in the Bible, other Christians around me would testify to their experiences with the Holy Spirit. Those Christians would received positive reinforcement in the form of admiration from the rest of the congregation. Accordingly, I desired to have my own experience with the Holy Spirit.

And what exactly was your motivation? Were you thinking: "I want to experience that for spiritual growth." Or "I think these people are insane but I'm going to give it a shot just to prove it to myself." Or "I just want to get these people off my back by being able to say I've been there, done that."

As was previously explained, my expectation was informed by the Scriptures and other Christians. The doubts I had are the same as I have now; how to distinguish between an actual experience of the Holy Spirit and a mistaken belief that an experience was caused by the Holy Spirit.

Why? What difference would it make?

I'm compelled by intellectual honesty to remain skeptical of such claims from the Bible because they cannot be demonstrated and have no implicit empirical basis. Therefore, those stories are not particularly helpful in the investigation of whether the Holy Spirit actually exists or not.

Okay. Good. It sort of brings us back to the aforementioned inability to go beyond simple speculation. So far we could safely speculate that you had no experience with the holy spirit. If you have in mind to demonstrate the holy spirit with implicit empirical basis you are barking up the wrong tree. God and the holy spirit probably isn't for you.

You may also be aware of the Biblical prophecy of Cyrus the Great? God's holy spirit was used to accomplish the prophecy, no doubt, but without any knowledge from Cyrus. He knew nothing of it until after the fact. So if God wants to accomplish something through you and the holy spirit is employed you may never know.

[bluegreenearth]

Right. Okay. So, in that sense you can't say either way. No point in trying. You can speculate regarding the scenario and you can be inclined to doubt but you can't really say either way.

Correct, and I must presume that this outcome applies to everyone else as well.

And what exactly was your motivation? Were you thinking: "I want to experience that for spiritual growth." Or "I think these people are insane but I'm going to give it a shot just to prove it to myself." Or "I just want to get these people off my back by being able to say I've been there, done that."

My motivation was to know if claims about the Holy Spirit were true.

Why? What difference would it make?

The difference would be having a logical justification for my belief rather than no logical justification.

Okay. Good. It sort of brings us back to the aforementioned inability to go beyond simple speculation. So far we could safely speculate that you had no experience with the holy spirit. If you have in mind to demonstrate the holy spirit with implicit empirical basis you are barking up the wrong tree. God and the holy spirit probably isn't for you.

You may also be aware of the Biblical prophecy of Cyrus the Great? God's holy spirit was used to accomplish the prophecy, no doubt, but without any knowledge from Cyrus. He knew nothing of it until after the fact. So if God wants to accomplish something through you and the holy spirit is employed you may never know.

...and that demonstrates the futility of an unfalsifiable belief.

[DavidLeon]

Right. Okay. So, in that sense you can't say either way. No point in trying. You can speculate regarding the scenario and you can be inclined to doubt but you can't really say either way.

Correct, and I must presume that this outcome applies to everyone else as well.

Not exactly, no.

And what exactly was your motivation? Were you thinking: "I want to experience that for spiritual growth." Or "I think these people are insane but I'm going to give it a shot just to prove it to myself." Or "I just want to get these people off my back by being able to say I've been there, done that."

My motivation was to know if claims about the Holy Spirit were true.

And now you know that that isn't possible. How does that feel? Surely you don't have to know if every claim in the universe is true. That too would be impossible for anyone.

Why? What difference would it make?

The difference would be having a logical justification for my belief rather than no logical justification.

Hmmm. And you require that logical justification? Interesting. How would you logically justify love?

Okay. Good. It sort of brings us back to the aforementioned inability to go beyond simple speculation. So far we could safely speculate that you had no experience with the holy spirit. If you have in mind to demonstrate the holy spirit with implicit empirical basis you are barking up the wrong tree. God and the holy spirit probably isn't for you.

You may also be aware of the Biblical prophecy of Cyrus the Great? God's holy spirit was used to accomplish the prophecy, no doubt, but without any knowledge from Cyrus. He knew nothing of it until after the fact. So if God wants to accomplish something through you and the holy spirit is employed you may never know.

...and that demonstrates the futility of an unfalsifiable belief.

Are you trying to convince yourself or someone else of something?

[bluegreenearth]

Correct, and I must presume that this outcome applies to everyone else as well.

Not exactly, no.

To suggest otherwise is special pleading.

And now you know that that isn't possible. How does that feel? Surely you don't have to know if every claim in the universe is true. That too would be impossible for anyone.

If I can't know that the claim is true or false, then it is a useless claim for someone to make.

Hmmm. And you require that logical justification? Interesting. How would you logically justify love?

You are making a false equivocation. Claims about the existence of the Holy Spirit are not equivalent to claims about the existence of emotional states such as love. If the Holy Spirit is equivalent to an emotional state, then it can't be demonstrated to exist independently from the human brain. Therefore, equating the Holy Spirit to love is not at all helpful.

Are you trying to convince yourself or someone else of something?

If I've made a valid point, then whether I am trying to convince myself or someone else shouldn't really matter.

[Quantrill]

By that logic, you don't know anything about the Holy Spirit either because the knowledge you claim to have was obtained in the same manner as what I described for myself; personal experience, the Scriptures, and anecdotal evidence.

So, by consulting the Scriptures and subsequently having an experience that I previously believed was the action of the Holy Spirit, my knowledge of the Holy Spirit is contrary to Scripture? Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the clarification.

I wasn't asking you to prove the Holy Spirit to me or anyone else. I was asking how I could prove to myself that my experience was caused by the Holy Spirit rather than being a case of mistaken attribution.

That which you described is contrary to the Scripture. You can say whatever you want. But what you describe is not true.

Again, you can say whatever you like. But what you describe is contrary to the Scripture.

What's the difference? If you want the Holy Spirit proved to you or anyone else, you want Him proved. It is the same. Because you have to ask, 'how can I prove to myself' , you never had the experience. Because you admit your confusion and possibility of 'mistaken attribution', whatever you had was not from the Holy Spirit.

Quantrill

[DavidLeon]

Correct, and I must presume that this outcome applies to everyone else as well.

Not exactly, no.

To suggest otherwise is special pleading.

It doesn't matter to me what you call it, how do you react to it? How does it effect the outcome?

You said that you must presume that this outcome applies to everyone else as well. Why is that? How is it that you can presume anything at all, much less must presume? If you have to presume anything it must be useless since you can't know if the presumption is true or false. Presumption would be useless? Is that a claim that you are making - that it applies to everyone else?

If I claim that a person can hold their breath underwater for 22 minutes and 25 seconds must you presume that doesn't apply to everyone?

Would it have been possible for your holy spirit experience to be real to you and how would you have known if it had been?

And now you know that that isn't possible. How does that feel? Surely you don't have to know if every claim in the universe is true. That too would be impossible for anyone.

If I can't know that the claim is true or false, then it is a useless claim for someone to make.

A claim is useless unless bluegreenearth can verify it. No more claims should be made without running them by you? You have a system of determining the validity of every possible claim which is infallible? Nothing is possible nor should even be claimed as possible until you verify it? All claims are useless to you unless they are true? How can you possibly Learn anything? Explore? Discover?

Hmmm. And you require that logical justification? Interesting. How would you logically justify love?

You are making a false equivocation. Claims about the existence of the Holy Spirit are not equivalent to claims about the existence of emotional states such as love. If the Holy Spirit is equivalent to an emotional state, then it can't be demonstrated to exist independently from the human brain. Therefore, equating the Holy Spirit to love is not at all helpful.

I didn't equate the two I asked you how you would logically justify love. Love is something that you know is real but can you logically justify it? If you can't logically justify love knowing that it is real then you have to accept the possibility that something can be real without your ability to logically justify it. God is love. The holy spirit is God's active force.

Are you trying to convince yourself or someone else of something?

If I've made a valid point, then whether I am trying to convince myself or someone else shouldn't really matter.

I think that it might matter. It would have something to do with the confirmation bias I mentioned earlier in the thread. That's a two way street you know. If you are doing this as an intellectual exercise, a debate challenge how confident do you feel regarding your Biblical, Christian, and anecdotal observations?

What is the holy spirit and what does it do? Does it make people act strange, convulse, babble like an idiot, handle snakes and drink poison? Or does it guide and teach?

[bluegreenearth]

That which you described is contrary to the Scripture. You can say whatever you want. But what you describe is not true.

Again, you can say whatever you like. But what you describe is contrary to the Scripture.

What's the difference? You want the Holy Spirit proved to you or anyone else. It is the same. Because you have to ask, 'how can I prove to myself' , you never had the experience. Because you admit your confusion and possibility of 'mistaken attribution', whatever you had was not from the Holy Spirit.

I described that I consulted the Scriptures. How can what the Scriptures describe about the Holy Spirit be contrary to Scripture? If I may be so bold as to borrow from your playbook and hurl an accusation right back at you, I suspect you don't have a way to know if your experience was actually caused by the Holy Spirit or not. Otherwise, you would have provided that information. It is fine if you just have faith that your experience was caused by the Holy Spirit, but it is intellectual dishonest to insist you have a way to rule-out the possibility of being mistaken in your belief. When asked to describe how you achieved that necessary objective, the responses you offered were nothing but empty and elusive. Please don't bother supplying another post if it will only contain evasive and worthless rhetoric. You may be satisfied with logically fallacious excuses, but I hold higher standards for myself and won't waste any more of my time with this unproductive dialogue. So, either defend your claim with a logical argument or don't bother responding at all.

[bluegreenearth]

It doesn't matter to me what you call it, how do you react to it? How does it effect the outcome?

You said that you must presume that this outcome applies to everyone else as well. Why is that? How is it that you can presume anything at all, much less must presume? If you have to presume anything it must be useless since you can't know if the presumption is true or false. Presumption would be useless? Is that a claim that you are making - that it applies to everyone else?

If I claim that a person can hold their breath underwater for 22 minutes and 25 seconds must you presume that doesn't apply to everyone?

Would it have been possible for your holy spirit experience to be real to you and how would you have known if it had been?

There is either a way for people to distinguish between an actual experience of the Holy Spirit and a strong belief that an experience was caused by the Holy Spirit, or there isn't a way to achieve that necessary objective. It is not possible for some people to have a way to make that distinction that wouldn't also be available to everyone else.

A claim is useless unless bluegreenearth can verify it. No more claims should be made without running them by you? You have a system of determining the validity of every possible claim which is infallible? Nothing is possible nor should even be claimed as possible until you verify it? All claims are useless to you unless they are true? How can you possibly Learn anything? Explore? Discover?

The Laws of Logic apply universally, even if they are fallible. Not all claims are useless. We learn by testing falsifiable claims.

I didn't equate the two I asked you how you would logically justify love. Love is something that you know is real but can you logically justify it? If you can't logically justify love knowing that it is real then you have to accept the possibility that something can be real without your ability to logically justify it. God is love. The holy spirit is God's active force.

You claim to not be equivocating the two then proceed to directly equivocate the two. If God is love, then how do you distinguish between a natural human emotional state and a deity that exists independently from your thoughts about it?

I think that it might matter. It would have something to do with the confirmation bias I mentioned earlier in the thread. That's a two way street you know. If you are doing this as an intellectual exercise, a debate challenge how confident do you feel regarding your Biblical, Christian, and anecdotal observations?

I mitigate for confirmation bias in this investigation by considering the claim from the Christian rather than atheist perspective. I am attempting to operate with the Christian worldview when asking those critical thinking questions. So, even when I adopt a Christian perspective, it is impossible for me to distinguish between an actual experience of the Holy Spirit and a mistaken belief that an experience was caused by the Holy Spirit.

What is the holy spirit and what does it do? Does it make people act strange, convulse, babble like an idiot, handle snakes and drink poison? Or does it guide and teach?

It is my understanding of the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit is supposed to guide people to the correct interpretation of the Scriptures. Yes, I know the reasoning is circular, but I didn't write that logical fallacy into the Scriptures.

[Quantrill]

I described that I consulted the Scriptures. How can what the Scriptures describe about the Holy Spirit be contrary to Scripture? If I may be so bold as to borrow from your playbook and hurl an accusation right back at you, I suspect you don't have a way to know if your experience was actually caused by the Holy Spirit or not. Otherwise, you would have provided that information. It is fine if you just have faith that your experience was caused by the Holy Spirit, but it is intellectual dishonest to insist you have a way to rule-out the possibility of being mistaken in your belief. When asked to describe how you achieved that necessary objective, the responses you offered were nothing but empty and elusive. Please don't bother supplying another post if it will only contain evasive and worthless rhetoric. You may be satisfied with logically fallacious excuses, but I hold higher standards for myself and won't waste any more of my time with this unproductive dialogue. So, either defend your claim with a logical argument or don't bother responding at all.

What the Scripture says concerning the Holy Spirit is true. What you are saying is contrary to Scripture.

I believe the Scriptures and of course I know whatever experience I had, or have from the Holy Spirit, is by the Holy Spirit.

How did I achieve that objective? I placed faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour and was born-again by the Holy Spirit. My spirit was made alive unto God. I now had a right relationship with God. And I know it.

I told you before you're just voicing the same old demand from atheists about God. 'Prove it'. And I am not interesting in proving it. God is not interested in me proving it. God is not interested in proving Himself to the unbeliever. Scripture declares God and Christ. The proving it is left to the Holy Spirit who opens the eyes of a person.

Quantrill