What Is The Holy Spirit

Phat writes: whyat you guys all fail to understand is that I don't believe that the book is all that Jesus is or says. I relate to a living Christ and not a character in a book.

We totally understand Phat. You make your own God to suit your personal beliefs, needs and circumstances. Just like everybody does. We've been telling you that for years, it's no surprise.

It won't stop us pointing out what your book actually says.

I'm sorry for your troubles. I hope your situation improves dramatically.

But, Phat, I will take this opportunity to inform you that had the liberal agenda been implemented then right now your mum would be receiving medical care free of charge and your Niece's family would not be in any danger since the covid protocols would have be established much more effectively.

quote:

---

The thing is, if nobody owned anything, where could He stay? Surely some people needed to own homes.

---

Did he need somewhere to stay?

19 A scribe then approached and said, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” 20 And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”

(Matthew 8, NRSV)

Phat writes: The issue is the right to spend other peoples money for them.

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.

Phat writes: Perhaps I don't believe that every *true* follower needs to give up everything literally. ringo can argue until the sacred cows come home, but I'm not falling for an argument from a man who has ceased considering belief as relevant.

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

ringo writes: The issue is that Christians are supposed to take care of the poor - but they don't, so governments have it do it.

So what is the basic argument? Lets reduce it to a basic dollars and cents (or sense ) argument.

First, define "the poor". Is it the guy scraping by on minimum wage trying to raise a family? Is it people largely outside of the United States that are far worse off?

Is it simply a monetary equation? The net worth of everyone divided by the basic cost of food, clothing, shelter, and perhaps health care and retirement security?

Lets start by defining that.

Next, using the "book" as a supporting argument, who among us globally professes to be a Christian? And does this legally obligate these people alone to ...oh I dunno....give all that they have to alleviate global poverty before anyone else is legally obligated to lift a finger? Lets be clear what you mean, ringo. I sometimes think that you and many other liberals target the global "Christian" Nationalists whom you see with a lions share of the money....
and whom do not...by the way...represent a lions share of we Christians. Many of us are less than wealthy. So explain your "issue" more fully.

Do I get a share of your spare change if I am Christian or if I am simply poor?

Are you exempt from the group that has to help the poor through government since the church down the block failed?

Edited by Phat, : spelling

Edited by Phat, : spelling

quote:

---

First, define "the poor". Is it the guy scraping by on minimum wage trying to raise a family? Is it people largely outside of the United States that are far worse off?

---

What limits did Jesus suggest? Doesn’t the story of the Good Samaritan suggest that you should not limit it to people of your own nation?

quote:

---

Is it simply a monetary equation? The net worth of everyone divided by the basic cost of food, clothing, shelter, and perhaps health care and retirement security?

---

Surely it should be a sufficient amount for everyone to get by.

quote:

---

Next, using the "book" as a supporting argument, who among us globally professes to be a Christian? And does this legally obligate these people alone to ...oh I dunno....give all that they have to alleviate global poverty before anyone else is legally obligated to lift a finger?

---

You are confusing religion and secular law. Legally you aren’t required to give any more, and nobody has suggested that you should. As a matter of religious obligation it is irrelevant what unbelievers do or do not do. By definition unbelievers will not accept that they have that obligation.

quote:

---

Do I get a share of your spare change if I am Christian or if I am simply poor?

---

Why would being Christian entitle you to an unbeliever’s money?
If you’re talking about government spending you should get the same entitlements as anyone else in the same economic situation, regardless of your religion.

quote:

---

Are you exempt from the group that has to help the poor through government since the church down the block failed?

---

This seems to be the same confusion about law and religious obligation again.

Phat writes: First, define "the poor". Is it the guy scraping by on minimum wage trying to raise a family? Is it people largely outside of the United States that are far worse off?

Don't try to calculate your way out of responsibility. "The poor" is anybody who needs your help.

Phat writes: Next, using the "book" as a supporting argument, who among us globally professes to be a Christian?

You do.

Phat writes: And does this legally obligate these people alone to ...oh I dunno....give all that they have to alleviate global poverty before anyone else is legally obligated to lift a finger?

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.

Phat writes: Lets be clear what you mean, ringo.

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.

Phat writes: Do I get a share of your spare change if I am Christian or if I am simply poor?

You get a share of my spare change if you ask for it. Ask and ye shall receive.

Phat writes: Are you exempt from the group that has to help the poor through government since the church down the block failed?

You know the answer to that. The government doesn't exempt anybody.

Lets close out the year arguing about the practical implications of "giving it all up".

ringo writes: So what do you have to back up your claim that what Jesus said to the rich young ruler was specific to him only?

Despite your overall mockery of apologists, this one has as good of an answer as I would give.
Does Jesus Expect His Followers To Give Up All Of Their Possessions

I knolw your arguments. You will take the literal words of the book (and the character Jesus in the book) as your argument. I reject your argument because of several reasons:
1) I do not see Jesus expecting everyone whom He talks to to do everything that He says to each individual as a collective instruction. I do see your argument and examples as a possible plain interpretation, but I also do not relate to Jesus the character any more than I would or even could relate to the character Frodo...or Long John Silver. I do not relate to characters in books. If Karl Marx...long dead...told you that from each according to his ability to each according to their needs, I wouldn't expect you to listen to that either.
I have a theory that you used to be so religious that you would have done such a thing and became disillusioned by how so few modern Christians follow the discipline and willingness of early Christians. I'm probably wrong, however.

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.

Again, you never mention the modern church. Why are you puzzled that very few of us would do it? Is that why you stopped believing?

Phat, there is no such thing as "the Modern Church™". That is as silly as claiming there is some such thing as "The Bible™".

Christianity is as fractured today as it has always been and as always the differences revolve around power, influence, politics and money.

The dogmatic differences today are the same as always, simply one tool to exclude those who challenge or threaten some cult's power, influence, politics and/or money.

And still no one has even tried to address the topic which is "What Is The Holy Spirit?"

And, likely for a good reason. Just as there is no "God™" or "Jesus™" or "Bible™" or "Christian Church™" there is no "Holy Spirit™". It is as meaningless a phrase as "Jesus is living today" is. It is solely the product of human imagination and means only whatever the person uttering the phrase imagines it might mean and even that seems to devolve into a series of additional meaningless but repeatable catch phrases and dogmatic spiels.

This looks interesting. Phat’s argument is well taken, imho, given cafeteria Christianity.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

jar is a constant unwavering challenge. Like with you, I know that you are not a believer and thus some of jars arguments make some sense to you as well as my ongoing attempts to address them. Ringo is a bit more puzzling because3 hee used to be a believer....I'm thinking a rather serious one...and then became disillusioned for two basic reasons.
1) Logic and Evidence took obvious precedence.
2) Most "Christians" whom he knew failed to live up to the standard(which he considers a no-brainer)

Jar, on the other hand, has positioned himself both as a believer(or at least a recognized member of a church) and yet also beholden to logic, reason, and reality. He always says he wants to get me to think (that I might actually enjoy it) but I cant simply take contrarian sides regarding my personal belief. I know that it makes zero sense to you guys and 100% sense to Biblical Christian Believers and Apologists.

Jar, on the other hand, has positioned himself both as a believer(or at least a recognized member of a church) and yet also beholden to logic, reason, and reality.

Those do not contradict one another.

You seem to see them as contradictory (your use of "yet"). I never saw them as contradictory.

So once again, what exactly is 'The Holy Spirit'?

The holy spirit is a little tweeting bird chirping in the meadow. The holy spirit is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad.