The Nature of the Holy Spirit

[_JAK]

Jak, you either believe or you don't believe. To a nonbeliever, religion does seem like a fairy tale but to a believer it can be a source of comfort and strength.

An over-simplification. Multiple levels of believing mythology can be documented. They range from blind belief devoid of rational thought to skeptical review of any declared religious mythology. Belief is hardly an either/or proposition as you state.

In addition, some believe one thing and others believe something else -- something different. Hence the range is inclusive of Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and all other religious doctrines. Further, each of the various religions have divisions or sects. Since the Protestant Reformation for Christianity, more than a thousand different groups have emerged with different doctrines/dogmas.

We can document the evolution of religious inventions over a considerable period (thousands of years). What those transformations have been is of historical interest.

JAK

[_Inconceivable]

Jak,

Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately) for you, you have probably witnessed few clues that would point you to a belief in that which is spiritual.

Back off and chill a moment. Just because you have not been privy to such things doesn't make you particularly intelligent. If anything, you're in the dark. Come on out.

Now, after all the spiritual manifestations I have experienced through out my life can I pin them down with as great a certainty as Nehor? Well, no. But yet spiritual manifestations occur.

There is a whole other amazing world out there JAK - confusing yes, but available to those that seek it out.

[_moksha]

Jak, you either believe or you don't believe. To a nonbeliever, religion does seem like a fairy tale but to a believer it can be a source of comfort and strength.

An over-simplification. Multiple levels of believing mythology can be documented. They range from blind belief devoid of rational thought to skeptical review of any declared religious mythology. Belief is hardly an either/or proposition as you state.

In addition, some believe one thing and others believe something else -- something different. Hence the range is inclusive of Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and all other religious doctrines. Further, each of the various religions have divisions or sects. Since the Protestant Reformation for Christianity, more than a thousand different groups have emerged with different doctrines/dogmas.

We can document the evolution of religious inventions over a considerable period (thousands of years). What those transformations have been is of historical interest.

JAK

Very well put, however to the believer it is something more than myth.

[_JAK]

Jak,

Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately) for you, you have probably witnessed few clues that would point you to a belief in that which is spiritual.

Back off and chill a moment. Just because you have not been privy to such things doesn't make you particularly intelligent. If anything, you're in the dark. Come on out.

Now, after all the spiritual manifestations I have experienced through out my life can I pin them down with as great a certainty as Nehor? Well, no. But yet spiritual manifestations occur.

There is a whole other amazing world out there JAK - confusing yes, but available to those that seek it out.

Claims absent clear, transparent, tested evidence should be disregarded.

They tend to be contradictory to one another as well as self-contradictory. By keeping meritless claims vague and ambiguous, those making them hope to evade the spotlight of intellectual inquiry.

Ignorance and stupidity masquerade as spiritual enlightenment.

Islamic terrorists claim “spiritual manifestations.” They act on those imagined "spiritual manifestations."

The “...amazing world...” is the one we embrace in science -- medical science, space science, and all the applied sciences which enrich and extend life.

Claimed “spiritual manifestations” -- read irrational emotions -- do not discover cure for disease or effective treatment for illness. Those fictions did not invent modern transportation on land, on sea, in the air, and now beyond the earth’s atmosphere. Those fictions hide in darkness, deny evidence, evade thoughtful analysis, and seek to cloud rational thinking. They use the dark dogma of doctrine to dupe, deceive, and ensnare.

“Fortunately” for you, discovery and reliable information have made possible the computer on which you read this. Fortunately for you, such reliable information (along with a degree of wealth) have given you access to the benefits of reliable conclusions. Fortunately for you, those reliable conclusions have made your quality of life superior to that of those who lived a mere 100 years ago and far superior to those who lived many centuries, even thousands and tens of thousands of years ago.

JAK

[_Inconceivable]

Jak,

My point is that some of it is real. But you'll have to experience it for yourself taking no one's word for it.

Don't blow your whole life without witnessing and acknowledging one for what it is.

[_Roger Morrison]

Interesting 'clash' here. In which i'm having more difficulty following the rational of Nehor than of JAK. IF i'm following JAK correctly he is simply asking for tangible evidence of the claim re quantifying religious/spiritual manefestations in their products, as science sets before us its products???

I'm not sure IF my 'spiritual' experiences are the same as anyone elses? As are our physical 'experiences' wherein we can exchange documented data... That being the case how does one define, explain, illustrate the "spiritua"?? Could it be JAK enjoys 'his' but might articulate differently??

There seems little doubt--in my mind--that science has contributed more "good" to humanity than has religion. Could it be religion--the worship of "God"--has no more, or less, to do with one's personal spiritual experiences than does science in its many wonderous forms that brings one to exclaim, "Praise "God" from whom all blessings flow!!!!"

Like, "WOW!!" ain't life GRAND!!!???!!! The more we know about science, the more we know about life! Take yer pick...science or religion??? Warm regards, Roger

[_Inconceivable]

Roger, I had difficulty following your comment.

I can understand why Jak views spiritual experience as unquantifyable, and therefore, worthy of his rejection. But sometimes we're not always as smart as we give ourselves credit. Just because we don't understand an experience doesn't mean it didn't happen. I agree that emotion accounts for much of what people may term "Holy Ghost".

Time to start a new thread...

[_The Nehor]

Yes, JAK.

Nice science made the nice comforts come but yet people still aren't all (or even mostly) happy. When is science going to get on that?

Hate to break this to you JAK but your hard-core rationality is nothing without an emotionally-charged, subjective goal to aim at. Logic without a goal is useless. For that goal you have to turn to the 'dark dogma' or religion and philosophy.

[_JAK]

Yes, JAK.

Nice science made the nice comforts come but yet people still aren't all (or even mostly) happy. When is science going to get on that?

Hate to break this to you JAK but your hard-core rationality is nothing without an emotionally-charged, subjective goal to aim at. Logic without a goal is useless. For that goal you have to turn to the 'dark dogma' or religion and philosophy.

Nehor stated:
Yes, JAK.

Nice science made the nice comforts come but yet people still aren't all (or even mostly) happy. When is science going to get on that?

Hate to break this to you JAK but your hard-core rationality is nothing without an emotionally-charged, subjective goal to aim at. Logic without a goal is useless. For that goal you have to turn to the 'dark dogma' or religion and philosophy.

When it’s 105 degrees, do you prefer air-conditioning?
When it’s 0 degrees, do you prefer central heating?

When choosing food, do you prefer safe foods?

When you go out for entertainment, do you prefer a car that runs, an airplane that flies, a boat that floats?

That which you like, which you enjoy, which is reliable -- do you deliberately reject those things? I doubt it. Comfort is preferable to discomfort. Health is preferable to sickness.

As many posts as you have made, your computer and Internet access would appear to make you happy. If not, why are you writing posts?

And what gives you the access to the Internet? It’s applied science.

But you argue that science does not make people “happy.” Why? What are you doing here?

You’re disingenuous. You appear to argue that comforts, conveniences, and safety do not please you -- contribute to your emotional state in pleasurable experience.

Nehor asked:
Nice science made the nice comforts come but yet people still aren't all (or even mostly) happy. When is science going to get on that?

You’re dishonest here unless you claim applied science as you avail yourself of that makes you unhappy. Is that your claim? Do modern conveniences which science makes possible including health care makes you unhappy? I doubt it.

Nehor stated:
Yes, JAK.

Logic without a goal is useless.

A straw man attack. No one argued this. It’s typical of one who has no rational rejoinder to analysis.

Nehor stated:
Logic without a goal is useless. For that goal you have to turn to the 'dark dogma' or religion and philosophy.

Nonsense. Religious mythologies fail to contribute to discovery through information. They detract from discovery and historically have opposed discovery. Once we have rational, intellectual reason, religious myth is discredited. God wills it becomes an ancient and irrelevant claim of myth. No evidence for religious claims you make and imply has been presented.

Philosophy is far more broad than religion. Religion is a narrow, restrictive, unfriendly, intolerant, dictatorial, dogmatic, fanatical, and unreliable doctrine/dogma.

Islam is not Buddhism. Christianity is not Confucianism. Taoism is not Hinduism.

Religious pundits do not agree. While I have stated this previously, you have no refutation for the fact that disagreement has been well documented in comparative religious studies.

There is no refutation. The tendency for religious pundits (such as you) is to mindlessly make claim after claim as if repetition of the claim will make it correct. It will not.

JAK

[_karl61]

Yes, JAK.

Nice science made the nice comforts come but yet people still aren't all (or even mostly) happy. When is science going to get on that?

Hate to break this to you JAK but your hard-core rationality is nothing without an emotionally-charged, subjective goal to aim at. Logic without a goal is useless. For that goal you have to turn to the 'dark dogma' or religion and philosophy.

Nehor, Do you think that maybe in ten, twenty or fifty years science may be able to tell when you are feeling spiritual through some super scan machine - say the absense of certain brain chemicals or more of certain brain chemicals can highly predict what you are seeing or feeling.

do you believe that ninety percent of what people think is spiritual is just luck. Is your ability to sense fear or something just a sixth sense that has allowed your genes to survive to this point.

I do belive in some outside source of power/strenght or love but that is the exception where everyone is so quick to point success to God and failures to themselves or others. Also, there are some who can enduce euphoria through thought.

sorry, It's a lot of points.