|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 29, 2018 18:41:16 GMT
tpfkar Did you ever see "Star Wars?" Remember the Force? This goes to show you how much things have changed. Years ago, if someone asked what the Force in "Star Wars" is, I'd say, "Okay, you know what the Holy Spirit is, right?" Now it's the other way around. Many people don't believe in the Holy Spirit anymore, and some don't even grasp the concept. What is The Force? Is it as pedestrian as midi-chlorians or was that just another Galactolic add-on? Would you believe me if I told you that I had communication with them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 18:41:53 GMT
I consider it perfectly logical to dismiss any argument from a non-believer when it pertains to a very specific, complicated thing like I am asking. And if by "unwilling to answer a valid question from a non-believer" you meant "unwilling to answer several dozen questions whilst the goal line shifts more and more off topic," then I'm not concerned with how it makes me look. If you actually had one question, I would answer it, but you don't. No matter what I answer with (since I am believer and since my answer will come from that perspective), you will only continue to ask questions until either you're sick of typing, I'm sick of typing or your question has driven us wildly off-topic. Most likely the latter two. I'm looking for edifying communication. I am not interested in your challenges. As a theist, I do not understand this stance, Other peoples viewpoints and discussions are valuable to help me with my faith, especially opposing views. Why would you post here an not expect to get challenged? and why is being challenged not edifying? I don't presume to speak for the OP, but I can understand the sentiment. I could be wrong, but it seems to me like he wanted to discuss a specific topic with people who weren't inclined the challenge the very basis of said topic. There's a time for back-and-forth between believers and nonbelievers, but that wasn't the reason for which he started this thread. He didn't want to keep going down a rabbit hole with people who weren't interested in discussing the specifics of the topic that the OP wanted to discuss. Perhaps he should have given the person who responded more of a chance to engage the topic. But that's my read of what happened. It'd be like starting a thread about what your favorite Beatles song is, and then having to keep going back-and-forth with someone who is trying to convince you that the Beatles suck. It's just not the purpose for the thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 18:46:47 GMT
I consider it perfectly logical to dismiss any argument from a non-believer when it pertains to a very specific, complicated thing like I am asking. And if by "unwilling to answer a valid question from a non-believer" you meant "unwilling to answer several dozen questions whilst the goal line shifts more and more off topic," then I'm not concerned with how it makes me look. If you actually had one question, I would answer it, but you don't. No matter what I answer with (since I am believer and since my answer will come from that perspective), you will only continue to ask questions until either you're sick of typing, I'm sick of typing or your question has driven us wildly off-topic. Most likely the latter two. I'm looking for edifying communication. I am not interested in your challenges. As a theist, I do not understand this stance, Other peoples viewpoints and discussions are valuable to help me with my faith, especially opposing views. Why would you post here an not expect to get challenged? and why is being challenged not edifying? Rare is the moment I find myself up against a theological conundrum, and the couple of times that I have, I find it is more efficient to get a Christian's perspective on a Christian question. In general, I do not require help from other people. Most times, I do not find other people's viewpoints valuable. My faith has zero to do with what any believer or non-believer says to me, nor has it ever. I didn't expect not to get challenged, in fact, I predicted correctly that I would, thus the phrasing I included in my original post. Being challenged by a non-believer is not edifying because I'm looking for opinions from the non-reprobate mind. The reprobate mind has nothing interesting to say on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 29, 2018 18:52:42 GMT
As a theist, I do not understand this stance, Other peoples viewpoints and discussions are valuable to help me with my faith, especially opposing views. Why would you post here an not expect to get challenged? and why is being challenged not edifying? Rare is the moment I find myself up against a theological conundrum, and the couple of times that I have, I find it is more efficient to get a Christian's perspective on a Christian question. In general, I do not require help from other people. Most times, I do not find other people's viewpoints valuable. My faith has zero to do with what any believer or non-believer says to me, nor has it ever. I didn't expect not to get challenged, in fact, I predicted correctly that I would, thus the phrasing I included in my original post. Being challenged by a non-believer is not edifying because I'm looking for opinions from the non-reprobate mind. The reprobate mind has nothing interesting to say on the matter. Wow, I find that a disturbing stance. How would you feel about a PHD in religion who was an atheist? Do their views have any value?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 29, 2018 18:55:34 GMT
As a theist, I do not understand this stance, Other peoples viewpoints and discussions are valuable to help me with my faith, especially opposing views. Why would you post here an not expect to get challenged? and why is being challenged not edifying? I don't presume to speak for the OP, but I can understand the sentiment. I could be wrong, but it seems to me like he wanted to discuss a specific topic with people who weren't inclined the challenge the very basis of said topic in the first place. There's a time for back-and-forth between believers and nonbelievers, but that wasn't the reason for which he started this thread. He didn't want to keep going down a rabbit hole with people who weren't interested in discussing the specifics of the topic that the OP wanted to discuss. Perhaps he should have given the person who responded more of a chance to engage the topic. But that's my read of what happened. It'd be like starting a thread about what your favorite Beatles song is, and then having to keep going back-and-forth with someone who is trying to convince you that the Beatles suck. It's just not the purpose for the thread. Ok and Yes I completely despise the responses where you say "what do you think God would think of" and some asshat simply says "god does not exist" clearly they have not understood the question. I read winter's stance as being far more black and white than that, that any theological question answered by an atheist was suspect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 18:58:26 GMT
Initially, the context. Later, the results. Was there any sort of independant review you could do? I am asking this because all sorts of people have done all sorts of horrible things because 'God told them to' I wonder how much of the evidence you had was impacted by personal bias. Are you willing to discuss the evidence in more detail? If by independent review you mean "could anybody validate this communication besides me," then no, it cannot be independently reviewed or verified, although, since other people were involved, they would attest to the pleasant results. None of the evidence I had was impacted by personal bias. One of the commandments I was given made no sense to me. The other made perfect sense, but (I'm ashamed to say) it had never occurred to me before. As to the old "God told me to," I certainly cannot deny that many reprobate minds have heard demonic suggestions and acted on them. I'm willing to discuss the evidence. What would you like to know? I mean, ultimately, it's just the word of some person typing on a keyboard. Chances are 50/50 that I am lying. I'm not, but from your perspective, those are the odds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 19:02:58 GMT
As a theist, I do not understand this stance, Other peoples viewpoints and discussions are valuable to help me with my faith, especially opposing views. Why would you post here an not expect to get challenged? and why is being challenged not edifying? I don't presume to speak for the OP, but I can understand the sentiment. I could be wrong, but it seems to me like he wanted to discuss a specific topic with people who weren't inclined the challenge the very basis of said topic in the first place. There's a time for back-and-forth between believers and nonbelievers, but that wasn't the reason for which he started this thread. He didn't want to keep going down a rabbit hole with people who weren't interested in discussing the specifics of the topic that the OP wanted to discuss. Perhaps he should have given the person who responded more of a chance to engage the topic. But that's my read of what happened. It'd be like starting a thread about what your favorite Beatles song is, and then having to keep going back-and-forth with someone who is trying to convince you that the Beatles suck. It's just not the purpose for the thread. You may speak for me Dennis. You are correct. And the only reason I stopped the responded to short in his tracks the way I did was because I have already been down a rabbit hole with him. One question turns into 100. Also, as you say, "The Holy Spirit is a myth akin to a fairy," is not the kind "valid" response I find valid to the question " What is the Holy Spirit." It's just disrespectful snark.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 29, 2018 19:05:08 GMT
Ephesians 4:30 - "And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God"
One must be sentient in order to feel grief. If the Holy Spirit can be grieved, isn't that scripture viewing the Holy Spirit as sentient?
Everyone hearing that expression already KNOWS the judicial system is not a living thing (same with "grievance to the power"), so there would be no doubt that it is just figurative and not literal. But when the sentience of an entity is QUESTIONABLE, then an authoritative writing that the entity can experience grief can be reasonably used as evidence that the entity is sentient.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 29, 2018 19:05:25 GMT
Vegas“Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”” Acts 5:3-4 Also is it possible to lie to something that isn't sentient?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 19:07:43 GMT
Rare is the moment I find myself up against a theological conundrum, and the couple of times that I have, I find it is more efficient to get a Christian's perspective on a Christian question. In general, I do not require help from other people. Most times, I do not find other people's viewpoints valuable. My faith has zero to do with what any believer or non-believer says to me, nor has it ever. I didn't expect not to get challenged, in fact, I predicted correctly that I would, thus the phrasing I included in my original post. Being challenged by a non-believer is not edifying because I'm looking for opinions from the non-reprobate mind. The reprobate mind has nothing interesting to say on the matter. Wow, I find that a disturbing stance. How would you feel about a PHD in religion who was an atheist? Do their views have any value? It has value if it is a view that relates to something like religious history. It has zero value in a discussion about scriptural meaning, especially considering that the scriptures themselves have identified it as valueless.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 29, 2018 19:08:15 GMT
Was there any sort of independant review you could do? I am asking this because all sorts of people have done all sorts of horrible things because 'God told them to' I wonder how much of the evidence you had was impacted by personal bias. Are you willing to discuss the evidence in more detail? If by independent review you mean "could anybody validate this communication besides me," then no, it cannot be independently reviewed or verified, although, since other people were involved, they would attest to the pleasant results. None of the evidence I had was impacted by personal bias. One of the commandments I was given made no sense to me. The other made perfect sense, but (I'm ashamed to say) it had never occurred to me before. As to the old "God told me to," I certainly cannot deny that many reprobate minds have heard demonic suggestions and acted on them. I'm willing to discuss the evidence. What would you like to know? I mean, ultimately, it's just the word of some person typing on a keyboard. Chances are 50/50 that I am lying. I'm not, but from your perspective, those are the odds. Those are not the odds at all. I would like to know how you experienced this revelation, how it came to you and what happened. I suspect that the personal bias I refer to is actually confirmation bias, and I would be extremely surprised if your story does not lend itself to confirmation bias, but if you are willing to share I would be very keen on hearing.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 29, 2018 19:10:07 GMT
Wow, I find that a disturbing stance. How would you feel about a PHD in religion who was an atheist? Do their views have any value? It has value if it is a view that relates to something like religious history. It has zero value in a discussion about scriptural meaning, especially considering that the scriptures themselves have identified it as valueless. So the entire science of hermanetics (sp crap today) that they would have studied that sheds light on the scenario in which scripture was written and therefore illuminates our interpretation is valueless?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 19:12:00 GMT
It has value if it is a view that relates to something like religious history. It has zero value in a discussion about scriptural meaning, especially considering that the scriptures themselves have identified it as valueless. So the entire science of hermanetics (sp crap today) that they would have studied that sheds light on the scenario in which scripture was written and therefore illuminates our interpretation is valueless? Per the scriptures, that is correct. You will find with me that I lean on the scriptures pretty much exclusively. And the scriptures tell us that the reprobate mind cannot discern.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 29, 2018 19:17:59 GMT
tpfkar So the entire science of hermanetics (sp crap today) that they would have studied that sheds light on the scenario in which scripture was written and therefore illuminates our interpretation is valueless? Per the scriptures, that is correct. You will find with me that I lean on the scriptures pretty much exclusively. And the scriptures tell us that the reprobate mind cannot discern. I pretty much like to leave likely fratricidal catfights like this and the Trinity to the "faithful", but I've got to say, you do a great job of pulling me in. What's your thing? Making strange people fall in love with you?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 29, 2018 19:23:47 GMT
So the entire science of hermanetics (sp crap today) that they would have studied that sheds light on the scenario in which scripture was written and therefore illuminates our interpretation is valueless? Per the scriptures, that is correct. You will find with me that I lean on the scriptures pretty much exclusively. And the scriptures tell us that the reprobate mind cannot discern. Then you do yourself a disservice in my mind by rejecting 2000+ years in improving knowledge on the meaning and context of scripture. I presume you do not speak Hebrew and do not have access to original texts, so no matter how you cut it you have relied on other people to show you what to read and on other peoples interpretations, they may be believers but considering how many conflicting interpretations by believers there are I wonder how you can take what you read as accurate. I personally try to read as many stances as possible and try to figure out what value each stance brings. But I guess each to their own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 19:30:53 GMT
If by independent review you mean "could anybody validate this communication besides me," then no, it cannot be independently reviewed or verified, although, since other people were involved, they would attest to the pleasant results. None of the evidence I had was impacted by personal bias. One of the commandments I was given made no sense to me. The other made perfect sense, but (I'm ashamed to say) it had never occurred to me before. As to the old "God told me to," I certainly cannot deny that many reprobate minds have heard demonic suggestions and acted on them. I'm willing to discuss the evidence. What would you like to know? I mean, ultimately, it's just the word of some person typing on a keyboard. Chances are 50/50 that I am lying. I'm not, but from your perspective, those are the odds. Those are not the odds at all. I would like to know how you experienced this revelation, how it came to you and what happened. I suspect that the personal bias I refer to is actually confirmation bias, and I would be extremely surprised if your story does not lend itself to confirmation bias, but if you are willing to share I would be very keen on hearing. Of course they are the odds. I am either lying or I am not. Those are the two possibilities. You can add your own personal bias to the equation as you wish, but the fact remains, there are only two options, thus, the odds are 50/50. I will start by connoting the method by which this communication occurred. Because I am believer, God has spoken to me in many ways: through his Word, through the testimony of other believers, in dreams and within the natural bounds of what many would refer to as "doors opening and closing." But this was not like any of those. This was a voice that I heard within the confines of my brain (it was not audibly heard by my ears). It was very specific. And the best way I can describe the manner of it in tangible terms is akin to a teleprompter scrolling words out behind shut eyes.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 29, 2018 19:40:09 GMT
tpfkar Those are not the odds at all. I would like to know how you experienced this revelation, how it came to you and what happened. I suspect that the personal bias I refer to is actually confirmation bias, and I would be extremely surprised if your story does not lend itself to confirmation bias, but if you are willing to share I would be very keen on hearing. Of course they are the odds. I am either lying or I am not. Those are the two possibilities. You can add your own personal bias to the equation as you wish, but the fact remains, there are only two options, thus, the odds are 50/50. There are certainly more explicatory possibilities than that. this is my body
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 29, 2018 19:46:41 GMT
Those are not the odds at all. I would like to know how you experienced this revelation, how it came to you and what happened. I suspect that the personal bias I refer to is actually confirmation bias, and I would be extremely surprised if your story does not lend itself to confirmation bias, but if you are willing to share I would be very keen on hearing. Of course they are the odds. I am either lying or I am not. Those are the two possibilities. You can add your own personal bias to the equation as you wish, but the fact remains, there are only two options, thus, the odds are 50/50. I will start by connoting the method by which this communication occurred. Because I am believer, God has spoken to me in many ways: through his Word, through the testimony of other believers, in dreams and within the natural bounds of what many would refer to as "doors opening and closing." But this was not like any of those. This was a voice that I heard within the confines of my brain (it was not audibly heard by my ears). It was very specific. And the best way I can describe the manner of it in tangible terms is akin to a teleprompter scrolling words out behind shut eyes. You are either dead or alive, do you suppose the odds of that are 50/50 as well? cool, I accept you heard these words, are you also aware that schizophrenics hear voices in their heads? So far you seem to be describing a mental break. How were you able to determine this was God?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 29, 2018 19:48:10 GMT
What is the Holy Spirit? If you believe the Bible is a true, holy text, what conclusions have you drawn about defining what the Holy Spirit actually amounts to? My belief is that, just as Jesus was God in the flesh, the Holy Spirit is God in a different nature than his true nature, in this case, angelic. What you do you think? I prefer the question to be phrased as " Who Is the Holy Spirit?" Short answer: He is God. He Is the Third Person Of the Holy Trinity. The paradox is, He Is the First Person Of the Trinity to be mentioned in the Holy Bible (Genesis chapter 1, verse 2).
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 29, 2018 19:51:16 GMT
What is the Holy Spirit? If you believe the Bible is a true, holy text, what conclusions have you drawn about defining what the Holy Spirit actually amounts to? My belief is that, just as Jesus was God in the flesh, the Holy Spirit is God in a different nature than his true nature, in this case, angelic. What you do you think? I prefer the question to be phrased as " Who Is the Holy Spirit?" Short answer: He is God. He Is the Third Person Of the Holy Trinity. The paradox is, He Is the First Person Of the Trinity to be mentioned in the Holy Bible (Genesis chapter 1, verse 2). For you the holy spirit is 'I Am'?
|
|