The Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit inspires folk. The Muses had that role too.
Is the Spirit a reality outside of our reality, one who can - like Proteus - appear in different forms as the notion takes him? Divinities in Classical mythology had their functions: they oversaw the arts, or healing or war. What would be the point of the Holy Spirit? If God wished to inspire fisher folk he could do it instantaneously by a moment's thought; instead we have a curious waiting period, then comes the Spirit into a room and literally inspires. Are we not just a little suspicious that this is a borrowing from an existing mythology, a dramatic explanation of Christ's propaganda?
Is there sense in the Holy Spirit being some divinity? Or is he a personification of inspiration? How do we view him?
Who is the Holy Spirit?
Moderator: Moderators
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14003
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Post #101
[Replying to post 97 by Erexsaur]
I am unsure as to why that shows 'child sacrifice' and abortion are the same thing Exexsaur.
Are you saying that this remorse is because the women came to a conclusion that they had committed 'child sacrifice' because they chose to have the fetus aborted?
I don't see how that is evidence that 'abortion is child sacrifice'. Rather it appears to be evidence that these women have come to believe that abortion is child sacrifice, which is different.
A fetus is potentially a new-born baby.
A new-born baby is potentially a child
A child is potentially an adolescent.
An adolescent is potentially an adult...
One could argue that anyone who purposefully permanently interrupts that potential is committing some form of 'sacrifice' depending on the stage the 'sacrificed' is at, but in relation to the person, a fetus is not a person in that sense, as far as I can tell, and lawfully, isn't recognized as one before a certain time in the gestation process.
I would say I think of it as a vessel. Say a cup, and the cup is not full when it is only quarter full or half full, but there come a time before the cup is full that it can be considered full, or full enough.
I don't see how it is. It is a potential person, but there are many things which altogether go into making personality, and a fetus is not at a stage where those things actually come into play.But whether called a child or a fetus, isn't it still a person?
Women have suffered remorse years after the abortion.
I am unsure as to why that shows 'child sacrifice' and abortion are the same thing Exexsaur.
Are you saying that this remorse is because the women came to a conclusion that they had committed 'child sacrifice' because they chose to have the fetus aborted?
I don't see how that is evidence that 'abortion is child sacrifice'. Rather it appears to be evidence that these women have come to believe that abortion is child sacrifice, which is different.
A fetus is potentially a new-born baby.
A new-born baby is potentially a child
A child is potentially an adolescent.
An adolescent is potentially an adult...
One could argue that anyone who purposefully permanently interrupts that potential is committing some form of 'sacrifice' depending on the stage the 'sacrificed' is at, but in relation to the person, a fetus is not a person in that sense, as far as I can tell, and lawfully, isn't recognized as one before a certain time in the gestation process.
I would say I think of it as a vessel. Say a cup, and the cup is not full when it is only quarter full or half full, but there come a time before the cup is full that it can be considered full, or full enough.
Last edited by William on Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6607 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Post #102
[Replying to post 92 by Erexsaur]
My response referred to the phrase in your reply that I have made bold above. You do not know that we were created. You have assumed, or believe, that we were created.In response to my statements that include, "Does it matter that we are communicating with each other made possible by the fact that we were created?", you said,
brunumb wrote:
Assumes facts not in evidence.
The rest of your post offers nothing credible or compelling as an argument for the validity of the Bible.
I shared knowledge instead of assumptions. My saying that you are here with dignity and purpose was not credible or compelling to you? You are not impressed by the fact that you and I have life?
No. it's value comes from what someone is prepared to pay in order to have it.A one and a half million dollar sports car has its value because it was fearfully and wonderfully made by its builder.
No. It is the properties of matter and energy that led to organic organisms such as ourselves. The chemical processes that occur in cells and organisms do so without our intervention. They appear to be complex because we have limited intelligence and we have not yet answered many of the questions concerning how life functions.Our bodies are millions of times more elaborate than the most sophisticated of sports cars and you are not impressed?
Is that the inevitable threat of hell because I don't buy into religious nonsense? So be it.I only beg that you not make yourself a candidate for the school of hard knocks! It’s tuition is atrocious!
The Bible has yet to be established as anything more than elaborate, ancient fiction like all of the other alleged holy books.Is there any alternative to the Bible that’s valid and cannot be proven otherwise?
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6607 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Post #103
[Replying to post 93 by Erexsaur]
A classic example of how misinterpretation leads to misunderstanding. It also illustrates how so many Christian sects and denominations have resulted from different interpretations of the same text.Thanks for informing me of the story that illustrates how pride and unnecessary fear of being called stupid causes some to hide the truth that would have delivered them from being taken by untrustworthy individuals.
Re: Who is the Holy Spirit?
Post #104Guy Threepwood wrote:
So you would never let a child suffer any displeasure? any wish for candy or a new toy is instantly gratified? because you have that power?
You are not replying to what I said. I of course agree that giving children all they ask for is hardly kind; and I accept a negative experience or allowing the possibility of failure is good parenting. This is a far cry from allowing our children to suffer and die or wiping them out, infants included, because of some transgression.
Guy Threepwood wrote: The reason you do allow negative experiences/ consequences is not because you want them to suffer out of hate, but you want them to be able to one day fulfill their own potential... out of love. right?
Yes, the world and its grandmother know all this. It is sometimes called common sense. Now how does this advice from the good parenting book explain the destruction of people? You suppose the Holocaust was a good learning experience and Sodom was character building?
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3170
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm
Re: Who is the Holy Spirit?
Post #105[Replying to post 1 by marco]
Your question is really exegetical; yet you ask it as if sheer reason should determine the answers.
I am not in the least suspicious that Jewish Christianity borrowed from Greek philosophy/art. The Holy Spirit appears in Galatians, and is TAUGHT to Greeks, as if they were not yet fully familiar with it. The Holy Spirit in earliest Christianity dealt with ethics, primarily the love command. The "inspirational" aspects of his ministry loom larger than they should because they (i.e. speaking in tongues) were subject to controversy; just as in Rabbinic literature we see more about Sabbath observance than about sleeping with another's wife.
The background source for the H.S. is the O.T., especially Deut., Ezek., and Jer.
The notion of "personification" is very hard to square with Jewish thought. The closest we have of "personification" is Wisdom; even so, it is the Wisdom OF GOD. Jews did not personify floating abstractions like "inspiration"; that would have been idolatry.
I think most persons well-read in this department would know this.
The Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit inspires folk. The Muses had that role too.
Is the Spirit a reality outside of our reality, one who can - like Proteus - appear in different forms as the notion takes him?
Divinities in Classical mythology had their functions: they oversaw the arts, or healing or war. What would be the point of the Holy Spirit? If God wished to inspire fisher folk he could do it instantaneously by a moment's thought; instead we have a curious waiting period, then comes the Spirit into a room and literally inspires. Are we not just a little suspicious that this is a borrowing from an existing mythology, a dramatic explanation of Christ's propaganda?
Your question is really exegetical; yet you ask it as if sheer reason should determine the answers.
I am not in the least suspicious that Jewish Christianity borrowed from Greek philosophy/art. The Holy Spirit appears in Galatians, and is TAUGHT to Greeks, as if they were not yet fully familiar with it. The Holy Spirit in earliest Christianity dealt with ethics, primarily the love command. The "inspirational" aspects of his ministry loom larger than they should because they (i.e. speaking in tongues) were subject to controversy; just as in Rabbinic literature we see more about Sabbath observance than about sleeping with another's wife.
The background source for the H.S. is the O.T., especially Deut., Ezek., and Jer.
How do "we" view him? Who is the "we"?Is there sense in the Holy Spirit being some divinity? Or is he a personification of inspiration? How do we view him?
The notion of "personification" is very hard to square with Jewish thought. The closest we have of "personification" is Wisdom; even so, it is the Wisdom OF GOD. Jews did not personify floating abstractions like "inspiration"; that would have been idolatry.
I think most persons well-read in this department would know this.
Re: Who is the Holy Spirit?
Post #106[Replying to post 104 by liamconnor]
Thanks for your thoughts and for your explanation of what I wanted to ask. If one sees the question as requiring exegesis, fine; if one sees the question as extending into defining inspiration, fine. I see no reason to restrict one's answer.
Pushkin had a view on inspiration that is remarkably close to what the Holy Spirit personifies. Most Christians think he's a part of God, but you haven't dwelt on this for some reason.
Thanks for your thoughts and for your explanation of what I wanted to ask. If one sees the question as requiring exegesis, fine; if one sees the question as extending into defining inspiration, fine. I see no reason to restrict one's answer.
Pushkin had a view on inspiration that is remarkably close to what the Holy Spirit personifies. Most Christians think he's a part of God, but you haven't dwelt on this for some reason.
Post #107
[Replying to post 101 by brunumb]
Hello Brunumb,
You quoted my statement, “In response to my statements that include, "Does it matter that we are communicating with each other made possible by the fact that we were created?...� and then responded,
Let’s leave it up to Mr. Reality to determine whether I spoke from baseless assumptions or not. If I’m wrong he will give me the bad grade.
Your comments gave me a good laugh. Was that your intention?
Your response about my sports car comparison:
But when you build one for me, make sure that you put your best foot forward for making it the best car possible and I will pay you according to my determined worth of it according to what I am prepared to pay: ten cents! You can’t refuse to sell it to me because if you did, that would be another way that you would determine the worth of the car instead of me! You must stay true to your statement!
In response to my statement, “I only beg that you not make yourself a candidate for the school of hard knocks! It’s tuition is atrocious!�, you said,
Earl
Hello Brunumb,
You quoted my statement, “In response to my statements that include, "Does it matter that we are communicating with each other made possible by the fact that we were created?...� and then responded,
How can you know and say that I don’t know that we were created when there’s so much around us that points to it? Why is there such a big fight against it nearly everywhere we turn? What’s the great, great need to push the idea that we weren’t created? Do you hate the fact that you have worth? I hope not.Brunumb wrote:My response referred to the phrase in your reply that I have made bold above. You do not know that we were created. You have assumed, or believe, that we were created.
Let’s leave it up to Mr. Reality to determine whether I spoke from baseless assumptions or not. If I’m wrong he will give me the bad grade.
Your comments gave me a good laugh. Was that your intention?
Your response about my sports car comparison:
Ok. (This is fun!) Build a sophisticated sports car. Assemble it any ol fashion with the cheapest materials and make sure it looks good on the outside. Put it up for sale and the customer that sees it will determine that it’s worth $1 million and will pay you that amount because he has it and you would have your million dollars! That would be easy!Brunumb wrote:No. it's value comes from what someone is prepared to pay in order to have it.
But when you build one for me, make sure that you put your best foot forward for making it the best car possible and I will pay you according to my determined worth of it according to what I am prepared to pay: ten cents! You can’t refuse to sell it to me because if you did, that would be another way that you would determine the worth of the car instead of me! You must stay true to your statement!
In response to my statement, “I only beg that you not make yourself a candidate for the school of hard knocks! It’s tuition is atrocious!�, you said,
I went through the school of hard knocks many times and I am not in hell. Where did you get that thought? Why do you think God is eager to throw you into hell and force the world to miss out on your use of the unique, irreplaceable gift invested within you?Brunumb wrote:Is that the inevitable threat of hell because I don't buy into religious nonsense? So be it.
Ok. What charges you want me to throw against you in return?Brunumb wrote:A classic example of how misinterpretation leads to misunderstanding. It also illustrates how so many Christian sects and denominations have resulted from different interpretations of the same text.
Earl
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6607 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Post #109
[Replying to post 106 by Erexsaur]
There is nothing around us that points to our being created. Everything points to us being one of the many products of millions of years of evolution. Creationism is the result of a process of teaching people to accept beliefs uncritically. The mind becomes closed to the evidence pointing to the truth of evolution because it is in conflict with indoctrinated religious beliefs. I have worth as an individual and I don't need to have been the product of magic by some invisible being to give me that worth.How can you know and say that I don’t know that we were created when there’s so much around us that points to it? Why is there such a big fight against it nearly everywhere we turn? What’s the great, great need to push the idea that we weren’t created? Do you hate the fact that you have worth? I hope not.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6607 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Post #110
[Replying to post 106 by Erexsaur]
No need to wait. You spoke from baseless assumptions. If you had something more substantial and compelling you would have been able to provide it.Let’s leave it up to Mr. Reality to determine whether I spoke from baseless assumptions or not. If I’m wrong he will give me the bad grade.