What Is The Holy Spirit

quote:

---

Galatians 5:13-18 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

---

"Walking" in the Spirit is an action, serving one another. Those who believe in serving one another are walking in the Spirit. Those who believe in something else may not be.

Indeed it does - but 7 is a magic number.

YES! YES! YES! Of course I do! Who wouldn't? What's the point of being homo sapiens if we don't use our sapient abilities? If you rely on your intuition, you might as well be a cow. No mystery. I despise what is despicable. (That isn't necessarily all religion.) But you don't do what He says. You even deny that He says it.

Nope. It's a well-documented fact. I can only go by what you say here - and you have denied many times what Jesus said. My "interpretation" is just a plain reading. Yours is a self-serving fiction.

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.

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?

And everybody agrees that governments should spend the money for them - on roads, on schools, etc.But that is not the issue. The issue is that Christians are supposed to take care of the poor - but they don't, so governments have it do it.

I don't have to believe That Frodo existed to know what the book says. Address that point.

Don't try to calculate your way out of responsibility. "The poor" is anybody who needs your help. You do. As I have told you many times before, it has nothing to do with legal obligation. It's something that a reall follower of Christ would do cheerfully. I have been very clear: A follower of Christ would be glad to do what He asked. The disciples did it. The early Church did it. But you are a follower of a "Jesus" that you have made up in your head - one that is very careful not to ask you to do anything you don't want to do. You get a share of my spare change if you ask for it. Ask and ye shall receive. You know the answer to that. The government doesn't exempt anybody.

We already know the practical implications. The Early Church did it. Many religious communities have done it since then and many still do it. So bring it here. Not at all. See above. Many people who don't accept the book give it all up. But I have pointed out to you many times that it is NOT an individual instruction. See the widow who gave her only two mites. See the early church. See the widow who fed Elijah. I know you don't. You relate to the character that you made up, who coincidentally has the same name but not the same principles, who doesn't ask you to do anything hard. I believe in "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" because it's a good principle. I don't care who said it. I also believe in much of what Jesus said because they are good principles, not because of who said it.You, on the other hand, have created a personality cult around the messenger and ignored His message. On the contrary, I was specifically contrasting the early church with your modern cult. I'm not puzzled at all. Few of you would do it because you're fair-weather "Christians". You don't trust your God to take care of you. I stopped believing because the beliefs are nonsense.

No, most Christians that I knew and know (don't forget that almost everybody I know is a Christian) are better people than I am. Most of them would acknowledge that they are not doing as much as they should. I'm only arguing against the raving-lunatic fundamentalists who have the audacity to deny what Jesus plainly said.

Everybody should be beholden to logic, reason and reality.If God exists, He didn't give you a head just so that you could wear a crown of thorns that you got out of Crackerjacks. He wanted you to use it.

Nobody said anything about the whole country doing it. It's an instruction to believers. No, you don't refuse to pay your taxes. You refuse to follow Jesus. Not if you want to be "saved", you don't. Well, of course the whole middle class would be helping.But you're missing the point. God is supposedly helping too - but you don't have faith in Him. Monks are liberal global extremists? Don't be silly. And stop wallowing in that right-wing propaganda. No it isn't. You have no "right" to grab as much as you can while somebody else doesn't have enough to live. Again, not what we're talking about. I've answered that many times: Jesus will supposedly take care of you. Because you supposedly believe in Jesus.

People often confuse "reason" with "excuse". You might say your "reason" for considering voting for Trump is that the Democrats are all baby-eating leftists - but that is not a "reason"; that's an excuse for not looking at the facts and not thinking.Proper "reasoning" goes from truth to truth. You need true premises to produce true conclusions.So you can't produce a reasoned argument without true premises - and your "experiences" are not true (for the purposes of reasoning) unless they can be confirmed objectively. The problem is that YOU shouldn't be trusting the first explanation that you glommed onto.