What Is The Holy Spirit

Isn't one example enough? Again, I don't have to believe that Frodo was real to know what he said in the book. Address that.But if YOU believe the Jesus character was/is real, then YOU should certainly do what He said, shouldn't you? Your argument is with the Jesus in the book. That's the only REAL documentation that you have about Him.But you prefer to follow the character that you've made up in your head, which is a much less reliable source. Clearly, you prefer your own made-up Jesus because he never asks you to do anything hard.

From Sanders, here Any common standard version is fine, so either is acceptable. Sure: DAV Charitable Services Trust or anything that has a perfect score on Charity Navigator.That's the spirit. Good luck.

So are you suggesting that the many of us who have "let go and let God"...become real in our lives think as nothing more than cows? (Or as Buzsaw used to use the term "sheeple". ) Because I am suggesting that there was something in your rational minds that was overly rational...to the point where you just wouldn't let go of the evidence based discipline and allow yourself to see and experience the supernatural. Look, I know the difference between fantasy based wish fulfillment and a genuine mysterious yet shared experience. Critics will emphatically call it brainwashing, but I would call their refusal to accept it as stubborn... and an ode to an excessive belief in evidence and rationality. What is it that you find so despicable about faith-based (occasionally irrational) belief? Is it the over-reliance on emotion vs dry evidence based fact?Is it the shortcut that Jesus "saves" us and that we thus are not expected to do good works to complete our salvation? (Because if so, I can assure you that at my church anyway we do every bit as much good works in our community as all of jars taking out of the neighbors trash, putting grocery carts back in the corral, or you and your pocket full of spare change.My only beef with you two is that you refuse to acknowledge the presence of God beyond what the book says...and then have the gall to scold me because I do (and in your opinion don't do enough) And if so, neither do you. And you have no excuse any more than I might. Explain to the peanut gallery how my interpretation is self-serving? Documentation is easy enough to produce. Asimov, Stan Lee or any good fiction writer can provide you with documentation about Frodo, or Long John Silver, or whatever character they create. Even here at EvC, your documentation of your so-called "plain reading" is simply further evidence as to what *you* believe that the character says. But until you step out of the boat and walk over to where I and other believers reside, you are mere spectators on shore....content to cling to an ancient book simply to make an argument and loathe to step beyond your rational minds and your limited conception of God.Oh and one more thing. This Jesus whom you claim I make up most certainly does ask me to do things that are uncomfortable for me to do. He is no mere character in my head nor limited to a book. Perhaps you should become reacquainted with Him if in fact you ever met Him.

I dont believe that by implication Jesus means that everyone at any one instance is expected to give everything away or sell everything. I dont think we can imply that based on the specific text.

Where in the text do you find such an exemption?

Jesus specifically7 tells the rich young ruler that HE lacks one thing. The implication is not that everyone does.

How is that even a question? If you refuse to use your logical mind, you might as well be a cow. You can "suggest" until the cows come home but you have nothing to back up your claim. "Overly rational"? Isn't that like being "overly healthy"? Can you have less than nothing wrong with you? If the "supernatural" had any reality to it, the "evidence-based discipline" would see it. Your pretense that the "supernatural" hides from evidence-based discipline is a huge cop-out. As I keep reminding you, that excuse applies to everything you don't believe in too: the leprechauns are hiding from us just like your God is. Clearly not. How about the lies, for a start? Why do you have to lie about your own Holy Book to prop up your fantasies? There's a place for emotion. It should never over-ride evidence. How is that not despicable? As I have pointed out too many times to count, it isn't how much you give that counts; it's how much you hold back. Holding back indicates a lack of trust in God. And you refuse to acknowledge the presence of leprechauns. What's the difference? I have the gall to point out that you're inconsistent. You make a distinction between God and leprechauns. It isn't my opinion. It's Jesus' opinion. Of course I do. Why would I do what a fictional character says? My "excuse" is that I don't do what any fictional character says just because he says it.The point of doing what Jesus says is to show that you have faith in Him, faith in what He says, and that you trust Him to stand by you regardless of the consequences. I don't believe He exists, I don't have faith in Him and I know He won't stand by me because He doesn't exist.So for God's sake, stop using that stupid argument. Oh come on. The peanut gallery can see it without any further explanation from me. Why don't you explain how believing that you don't have to do anything is not self-serving? That's first-hand documentation by the authentic authors. You certainly have no such documentation for Jesus. Nonsense. I quote the documentation so that anybody who reads it can see what it said. It doesn't make any difference what I think it says. As I keep telling you, I have been there. That's how I know how empty it is. I'm just pointing out that your "faith" is completely made up in your head. If you're not "clinging" to the Book, the character in your head might as well be called Barny Rubble. Do you even realize how stupid it is to argue against rationality? I have no conception of God. And the one you make up in your head is far more limited thn the ones in the Bible. But He doesn't ask you to give up everything you have to follow Him. How arrogant of you.

It isn't a "specific text"; it's a theme. Besides the rich young ruler:1. Jesus praised the widow for giving her last two mites, saying that it was more significant than the bags and bags of gold given by the rich men.2. Even in the Old Testament, another widow gave Elijah the last of her food, believing that she and here son would starve to death because of it.3. Zacchaeus promised to make fourfold restitution to the people he had cheated and to give the remaining half of his fortune to the poor. There is no indication that he held anything back.4. The early church believed it was what Jesus wanted them to do. And it seems they were right because Ananias and Sapphira were killed (by God) for not doing it.So what do you have to back up your claim that what Jesus said to the rich young ruler was specific to him only?

Ah, yet another example of looking for the copout!Got it!

Have you sold all that you have, jar? I rest my case.

Quite a bit Phat. But you still miss the whole point.Jesus really didn't think individuals should own anything more than the very basic minimal needs; the clothes they wore and maybe a knife or sword. Jesus was a socialist; he lived in other folks homes, ate other folks food, relied on others to meet his needs.That is the goal. Our duty is to get as close to that as possible, to do for others.It's not about how much anyone gives but rather what they deprive others. That includes the basics and actually have been a US Commitment since outlined by FDR as a peroration in his Four Freedoms Speech that really needs to be mandatory reading for every middle schooler. The evolution of the Four Freedoms speech; include the call to create a "moral order" in the US and Worldwide.There is nothing in there that is impossible or even very difficult or expensive; but it does require a sense of morality that seems totally missing among so much of US Christianity.

I read the four freedoms speech. It was quite good yet I cont6rasted it against a documentary that I saw recently.
The whole myth of cultural relativism is exposed, among other things. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

LOLHow could you watch that silly thing without breaking down into hysterical laughter. Pathetic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Do you actually think that is a documentary?There is absolutely nothing in that video that supports the existence of any war against the west. In fact there is absolutely nothing in that video that even explains what "the West" actually means.Edited by jar, : No reason given.

A bunch of vague statements taken out of context and put together in a way to make it sound scary.I guess they succeeded in fooling you. I'm not sure why you were unable to see how vacuous it is.

The thing is, if nobody owned anything, where could He stay? Surely some people needed to own homes. No argument there. Odd that you use that word. As if by owning a second cloak I am depriving someone else of a cloak. Sounds a bit globalist (and socialist/liberal) to me. In fact, I feel that the reason you don't like my documentary is because it is conservative leaning and expresses worry about Islam taking over Europe...which apparently to you relativists poses no problem. Perhaps the irony of this whole discussion is the meaning of what it means to be and represent Christianity. For many of us who were raised as Christian Nationalists, it was easy to proudly proclaim Jesus from a position of strength. When the Yanks and the Brits(traditionally the main idea of "the West") advanced the cause of freedom, it was under the guise of Christianity.If Islam actually became the dominant global; religion, I strongly feel that there would be friction with Christians...those who were left.