There is no different between the Holy spirit and the Great Spirit, they are both the same
The holy spirit was said to be fist given to John the Baptist and Then was given to Jesus Christ
But john the Baptist said who he was, pointing to Jesus that he was greater than him.
who or what does the Holy Spirit mean to you?
Full Version: What or who does the Holy Spirit mean to you?
please, spare us the proselytizing
ah good, im not the only one who was rearing to start bashing religion.
QUOTE(Onfire @ May 16, 10:19 AM) 
There is no different between the Holy spirit and the Great Spirit, they are both the same
The holy spirit was said to be fist given to John the Baptist and Then was given to Jesus Christ
But john the Baptist said who he was, pointing to Jesus that he was greater than him.
who or what does the Holy Spirit mean to you?
You WERE Onfire till this!
lol I just hope we dont have another dattaswami 
that was getting out of hand.
that was getting out of hand.
QUOTE(maximus242 @ May 16, 10:40 AM)
lol I just hope we dont have another dattaswami
that was getting out of hand.so if i can ask question to see what you guys really believe in
than why have a category of this, you will pick apart one the wishes to
talk about your categories ?????
QUOTE(Onfire @ May 16, 11:27 AM)
I am asking questions
i want to see what you guys really think.
if you dont want this types of question asked why do you have a category
I have no opinion on the holy spirit you're talking about. That kind of concept originated with Christianity, which happens to be a dogma based on organized religion created about two thousand years ago by the elite rulers of the Roman Empire at the time. This ideology, at its turn, was partially copied from ancient Hebrew manuscripts which were themselves "borrowed" from manuscrits so ancient that nobody really knows who wrote them; but which all have one thing in common: They were written by ancient civilizations whose only scientific knowledge were based on the stars and the movement of the stars from the earth's perspective. Or ancient Astrology, to put it another way.
lol no, but you are preaching about the holy spirit to people who havent even agreed that God exists. How are we supposed to form opinions about something that we have yet to even finish debating over if religion should even be in existance.
QUOTE(code buttons @ May 16, 11:38 AM)
QUOTE(Onfire @ May 16, 11:27 AM)
I am asking questions
i want to see what you guys really think.
if you dont want this types of question asked why do you have a category
I have no opinion on the holy spirit you're talking about. That kind of concept originated with Christianity, which happens to be a dogma based on organized religion created about two thousand years ago by the elite rulers of the Roman Empire at the time. This ideology, at its turn, was partially copied from ancient Hebrew manuscripts which were themselves "borrowed" from manuscrits so ancient that nobody really knows who wrote them; but which all have one thing in common: They were written by ancient civilizations whose only scientific knowledge were based on the stars and the movement of the stars from the earth's perspective. Or ancient Astrology, to put it another way.
i like your point of view code, your very optimistic
unlike others thanx for the reply
QUOTE(maximus242 @ May 16, 11:40 AM)
lol no, but you are preaching about the holy spirit to people who havent even agreed that God exists. How are we supposed to form opinions about something that we have yet to even finish debating over if religion should even be in existance.
did you understand my question?
or are you ignorant because you lack the ability to learn
new information or do you wish to dwell where you stand in present knowledge
dont you wish to increse in knowledge? why are you negative about
discussion
Sorry OnFire, but you have to understand that we get the same sort of topics ever few weeks. If you want to start posting things like this, you have to understand that not all the people on this forum are supportive of religion. If you check things like
On The Spiritual Laziness And Gullibility Of Christians, Islamic Sheep, Buddhists, And Others Who Cannot Think For Themselves. You will begin to see that people are debating god, they havent even reached the holy spirit or forms of specific religions, we are still in the general and overall similarities religions exhibit universally. On this forum, everyone gets a fair share of positive and negative responses, overall everyone gets along, but it is this clash in views that allows all of us to expand our minds.
On The Spiritual Laziness And Gullibility Of Christians, Islamic Sheep, Buddhists, And Others Who Cannot Think For Themselves. You will begin to see that people are debating god, they havent even reached the holy spirit or forms of specific religions, we are still in the general and overall similarities religions exhibit universally. On this forum, everyone gets a fair share of positive and negative responses, overall everyone gets along, but it is this clash in views that allows all of us to expand our minds.
On this forum, everyone gets a fair share of positive and negative responses, overall everyone gets along, but it is this clash in views that allows all of us to expand our minds.
[/quote]
now this is what i am talking about
lets share
[/quote]
now this is what i am talking about
lets share
Okay, well in response to your question, the holy spirit means nothing more to me than a undescriptive character in a story. It may be representational of something else that spans across multiple religions, but im unsure about that.
symbolizes the unknown self�the impulse or desire that guides us to seek�it is of the �feminine energies� which is that of intuition and inspiration�so�in being �given� means to me�one has developed intuitive insight
your on the right track - your pretty smart
your on the right track - your pretty smart
QUOTE(Dianah @ May 16, 04:49 PM)
onfire,
smiles...well...I am a woman...and not too many persist on this board...as for being on the right track...smiles again...I follow the heart
You are wise to say you follow the Heart, the heart doesnt lie.
cool pic Onfire. Where'd you get it?
The Holy spirit in the Christian sense doesn't mean anything in particular to me. I've always considered Christian texts to be a collection of parables - not to be taken as a literal idea.
I believe not so much in a "Holy Spirit", but in a consciousness that runs through all. I think that we are all part of a greater entity - though it is difficult to explain what I mean, because I can't really put into words just how I comprehend it. In essence, my belief is that we all have a piece of divinity within us.
I don't know if that was a satisfactory answer to your question, but I'll leave it incase it was of any interest.
I believe not so much in a "Holy Spirit", but in a consciousness that runs through all. I think that we are all part of a greater entity - though it is difficult to explain what I mean, because I can't really put into words just how I comprehend it. In essence, my belief is that we all have a piece of divinity within us.
I don't know if that was a satisfactory answer to your question, but I'll leave it incase it was of any interest.
I believe not so much in a "Holy Spirit", but in a consciousness that runs through all.
Are you speaking of a Universal Conciousness that connect all of us together
somehow. Somehow i think the world links every human being together.
let me be detail.
Look at the Sun and Moon, every human being the lived and will live
have seen the same Sun ,moon and walked the same earth as we are doing right
now. Could you right know think there a higher conciousness that is the base of our existing
QUOTE(Onfire @ May 17, 09:16 PM)
Are you speaking of a Universal Conciousness that connect all of us together
somehow. Somehow i think the world links every human being together.
Yes, that is pretty much what I was getting at. I'm not sure what you mean by the "Sun, Moon, Earth" comment. By a higher "Consciousness that is the base of our existance", do you mean God? I don't believe in an active God (as in the Abrahamic God) but I do believe that the collective Universe as a singularity is divine to an extent... it's quite difficult to accurately explain what I mean, without it sounding rather stupid. My belief was fairly well summed up by Ghandi:
�The ocean is composed of drops of water; each drop is an entity and yet it is a part of the whole; �the one and the many�. In this ocean of life, we are little drops. My doctrine means that I must identify myself with life, with everything that lives, that I must share the majesty of life in the presence of God. The sum-total of this life is God.�
If you don't mind me asking, where are you from, and is English your first language?
Born in Dominican Republic came to the US when I was 6
English is my primary language but i also speak spanish really good.
QUOTE(Onfire @ May 17, 05:16 AM)
Look at the Sun and Moon, every human being the lived and will live
have seen the same Sun ,moon and walked the same earth as we are doing right
now. Could you right know think there a higher conciousness that is the base of our existing
This is not true from a science perspective, Onfire. Matter/energy is never still, and never in the same place on a space/time scale. It's always in motion at such rate of speed that would make your ears pin all the way back to Alfa-Centaura if you ever felt it.
QUOTE(code buttons @ May 18, 08:15 AM)
QUOTE(Onfire @ May 17, 05:16 AM)
Look at the Sun and Moon, every human being the lived and will live
have seen the same Sun ,moon and walked the same earth as we are doing right
now. Could you right know think there a higher conciousness that is the base of our existing
This is not true from a science perspective, Onfire. Matter/energy is never still, and never in the same place on a space/time scale. It's always in motion at such rate of speed that would make your ears pin all the way back to Alfa-Centaura if you ever felt it.
let me be more detail ,even to this day
wasnt the same sun and moon that plato, Jesus, descartes, Einstein,
look up to is the same we today see.
there is a connection not between us but in what was present here and what will be present in the future, this connection was here before us, before time, before space, before the universe.
somehow it connects life to us, but also connects other dimensions, space and time .
QUOTE(maximus242 @ May 16, 10:33 AM)
ah good, im not the only one who was rearing to start bashing religion.
May I ask: Why do you and others seem to have this need to bash religion?
Keep in mind that I am not questioning your right to do so. Furthermore, I actually applaud your being willing to do so. However, I am curious as to why you feel this need and: What is your goal in so doing? Let's talk!!!
Hello Lindsay,
You ask a simple question to which some answers seem obvious to me.
People fall into many sets.
Just for the moment, let's just consider the two sets:-
Group 1
Those who have a faith in a religion of some sort, involving a God of some description and Authority.
Group 2
Those who don't fit into that set.
You wonder why some group 2 people 'bash' group 1 people or their beliefs.
(remember now that some group 1 people 'bash' group 2 people, sometimes because creeds dictate that they should, or because such creeds persecute them anyway, or because their beliefs dictate that they should recruit from group 1).
I can think of 3 other reasons why group 1's may bash group 2's.
1. They are not really sure of their of their own beliefs and are unable or unwilling to invest further time in considering other beliefs. (this makes them resistant to other peoples views).
2. They are sure of their own beliefs and think that it is their duty (and possibly responsibility) to try and convince group1's of group 2's beliefs (or just want to put across other ideas).
3. (an extension of 2 above) because they feel that those in group 2 are particularly vulnerable to being used by malicious persons who prey on people who may be seen to be gullible and easily led (ie., people who accept improbable situations, as far as they are concerned).
At the end of the day, as has been said elsewhere, it seems to be impossible at the moment to prove the existence or non-existence of Gods and external Authority. It seems to me, therefore, that each should be able to have equal access to all information and make up their own minds.
I don't have the slightest doubt, knowing human behaviour as it seems to me, that this 'conflict' will continue until a God appears unto us or we are wiped out (probably by mankind, but possibly Nature).
I do know that I fear Mankind much more than all the other forces of Nature.
You ask a simple question to which some answers seem obvious to me.
People fall into many sets.
Just for the moment, let's just consider the two sets:-
Group 1
Those who have a faith in a religion of some sort, involving a God of some description and Authority.
Group 2
Those who don't fit into that set.
You wonder why some group 2 people 'bash' group 1 people or their beliefs.
(remember now that some group 1 people 'bash' group 2 people, sometimes because creeds dictate that they should, or because such creeds persecute them anyway, or because their beliefs dictate that they should recruit from group 1).
I can think of 3 other reasons why group 1's may bash group 2's.
1. They are not really sure of their of their own beliefs and are unable or unwilling to invest further time in considering other beliefs. (this makes them resistant to other peoples views).
2. They are sure of their own beliefs and think that it is their duty (and possibly responsibility) to try and convince group1's of group 2's beliefs (or just want to put across other ideas).
3. (an extension of 2 above) because they feel that those in group 2 are particularly vulnerable to being used by malicious persons who prey on people who may be seen to be gullible and easily led (ie., people who accept improbable situations, as far as they are concerned).
At the end of the day, as has been said elsewhere, it seems to be impossible at the moment to prove the existence or non-existence of Gods and external Authority. It seems to me, therefore, that each should be able to have equal access to all information and make up their own minds.
I don't have the slightest doubt, knowing human behaviour as it seems to me, that this 'conflict' will continue until a God appears unto us or we are wiped out (probably by mankind, but possibly Nature).
I do know that I fear Mankind much more than all the other forces of Nature.
QUOTE
name='rhymer' date='May 27, 03:22 PM' post='65236'
Hello Lindsay, You ask a simple question to which some answers seem obvious to me...
Excellent response, Rhymer.Hello Lindsay, You ask a simple question to which some answers seem obvious to me...
QUOTE
At the end of the day, as has been said elsewhere, it seems to be impossible at the moment to prove the existence or non-existence of Gods and external Authority.
As you will note, in my signature I am now using the following way of writing the god-concept: G�D. For some time now, when I converse with people about theology and the god-concept, I have made it clear that I am not a typical monotheist, one who believes in a god called God, who appears to have a male gender like that depicted in much of the Bible. I suppose one could say that I am a non-theist. But in no way am I a contra-theist. ELOHIM, THE HIGHEST POWER &THEOS, and G�D, THE HIGHEST IDEA
The ancient Hebrews used the word Elohim as their name for the supreme power behind all things. The ancient Greeks used Theos. Using folk etimology, I believe that a good case can be made that our word 'god' and 'good' are related. For example, 'goodbye' is Old English for 'God be with ye.' Therefore, English speakers think of G�D as the good in all things, not just that which is all powerful (omnipotent) and all wise (omniscient). Therefore, G�D, is the one, powerful and good idea in and through all that IS.
For me--you are free to have your own ideas--therefore, G�D is the one powerful and good idea in and through all things, including that which appears to evil. Check out 'panentheism' in Wikipedia. Because it can be confused with pantheism, instead of 'panentheism' I prefer to use the doublet, unitheism--G�D is The Oneness. I find it impossible to deny that I am one with this Oneness any more than, like Descartes, I can deny my own existence. Therefore, with him I can say: I think, therefore, I am. In addition, I can csay: I am; what I think, believe and feel--good, bad or indifferent. This is my religion.
BTW, I agree with you when you write
QUOTE
It seems to me, therefore, that each should be able to have equal access to all information and make up their own minds.
I don't have the slightest doubt, knowing human behaviour as it seems to me, that this 'conflict' will continue until a God appears unto us or we are wiped out (probably by mankind, but possibly Nature).
I also agree that we have the power to be one with G�D, or one with NOTHING. The choice is oursI don't have the slightest doubt, knowing human behaviour as it seems to me, that this 'conflict' will continue until a God appears unto us or we are wiped out (probably by mankind, but possibly Nature).
as you put it
QUOTE
I do know that I fear Mankind much more than all the other forces of Nature.
Jesus�teaching was "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is within you".
The word "repent" in Greek -- metanoia -- means "change your mind", "change your consciousness".
The Truth of Reality, the Essence of Reality, is simple. So simple that Jesus did not need to make up a lot of rules for anyone to follow.
In fact, He ended up with only one commandment. He said, in John 15:12, "This is my commandment: love one another, as I have loved you."
The word "repent" in Greek -- metanoia -- means "change your mind", "change your consciousness".
The Truth of Reality, the Essence of Reality, is simple. So simple that Jesus did not need to make up a lot of rules for anyone to follow.
In fact, He ended up with only one commandment. He said, in John 15:12, "This is my commandment: love one another, as I have loved you."
QUOTE(Guest @ May 28, 12:09 PM)
...He (Jesus) said, in John 15:12, "This is my commandment: love one another, as I have loved you."
Right on, guest. Now, what interests me is: What are the moral, ethical and practical implications of this?
To love without conditions leaves morality, ethics and practice without boundaries.
Lindsay,
You�re asking the question to which you know the answer.
Didn�t Jesus make it very clear ?
We need moral and ethical rules and principles when there is no LOVE in our hearts.
You�re asking the question to which you know the answer.
Didn�t Jesus make it very clear ?
We need moral and ethical rules and principles when there is no LOVE in our hearts.
QUOTE(Joesus @ May 28, 02:34 PM)
To love without conditions leaves morality, ethics and practice without boundaries.
The New Testament Greek for 'love' is AGAPE. Modern Greeks, when they want to say, "I love you" still say, "Agapo". The 'o'--short for 'ego', on the end of the word, serves the same function as our 'I'
Unlike EROS--sensual love, from which we get our word 'erotic'--and PHILIA--love of a friend, and from which we get 'philosophy', AGAPE does not depend on how we feel, but on what we WILL to things and for others. I like to say that it arises in our willings, not just in our feelings.
The following is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape
=========================================
QUOTE
(FROM WIKIPEDIA)--Agapē (written αγάπη in the Greek alphabet, and pronounced /aga̍pe/ or /a̍gape/), is one of several Greek words meaning love. The word has been used in different ways by a variety of contemporary and ancient sources, including Biblical authors. Many have thought that this word represents divine, unconditional, self-sacrificing, active, volitional, thoughtful love. Greek philosophers at the time of Plato used it in a way that suggested love of that which is below you, rather than philia, love between friends or equals, and eros, love of that which is above you. Eros was seen as the lowest, and agape as the highest. The term was used by the early Christians to refer to the special love for God and God's love for humanity, as well as the self-sacrificing love they believed all should have for each other.
Agape can be defined as an intentional response to promote well-being when responding to that which has generated ill-being (Thomas Jay Oord). Agape, to use the Biblical phrase, returns evil with good. It is a prominent term in the works of C.S. Lewis.
Contents
=========================================
The greatest commandment
When asked what was the greatest commandment, Jesus said, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Gospel of Matthew 22:37-41)
[edit]
Love for enemies
At the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said:
You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Thus, agape, as a form of love, is both unconditional and volitional, i.e., it is non-discriminating with no pre-conditions and is something that one decides to do.
[edit]
Paul's descripton of love
Paul described love as follows: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails." (First Epistle to the Corinthians Chapter 13, verses 4-8a). In the original Greek language text that these descriptions of agape are all in verbs, a matter of action, although most languages, such as English, need to translate this using adjectives..
[edit]
John's definition of God
John equated God with love in his first letter, (1st John): "Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." (1 John 4:7-8 KJV)
[edit]
New Commandment
At the Last Supper, Jesus gave his disciples this final commandment, and declared love to be the defining characteristic of Christianity: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:34-35) Jesus went on to say "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13) Thus Jesus' sacrificial crucifixion epitomizes Christian love, an example for his disciples to follow.
Agape can be defined as an intentional response to promote well-being when responding to that which has generated ill-being (Thomas Jay Oord). Agape, to use the Biblical phrase, returns evil with good. It is a prominent term in the works of C.S. Lewis.
Contents
=========================================
The greatest commandment
When asked what was the greatest commandment, Jesus said, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Gospel of Matthew 22:37-41)
[edit]
Love for enemies
At the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said:
You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Thus, agape, as a form of love, is both unconditional and volitional, i.e., it is non-discriminating with no pre-conditions and is something that one decides to do.
[edit]
Paul's descripton of love
Paul described love as follows: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails." (First Epistle to the Corinthians Chapter 13, verses 4-8a). In the original Greek language text that these descriptions of agape are all in verbs, a matter of action, although most languages, such as English, need to translate this using adjectives..
[edit]
John's definition of God
John equated God with love in his first letter, (1st John): "Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." (1 John 4:7-8 KJV)
[edit]
New Commandment
At the Last Supper, Jesus gave his disciples this final commandment, and declared love to be the defining characteristic of Christianity: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:34-35) Jesus went on to say "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13) Thus Jesus' sacrificial crucifixion epitomizes Christian love, an example for his disciples to follow.
=======================00000000000000000000000================================
QUOTE
QUOTE(Joesus @ May 28, 02:34 PM)
To love without conditions leaves morality, ethics and practice without boundaries.
Not quite correct. Interestingly, Paul--the great apostle and framer of the policies of early Christianity--the same one who wrote the famous words about Christian love in 1 Corinthians 13, also said to the freeloaders in at Thessaloniaca (see 2 Thess. 3:6-15) also wrote: "Whoever refuses to work is not allowed to eat."
The New Testament Greek for 'love' is AGAPE. Modern Greeks, when they want to say, "I love you" still say, "Agapo". The 'o'--short for 'ego', on the end of the word, serves the same function as our 'I'
Unlike EROS--sensual love, from which we get our word 'erotic'--and PHILIA--love of a friend, and from which we get 'philosophy', AGAPE does not depend on how we feel, but on what we WILL to things and for others. I like to say that it arises in our willings, not just in our feelings.
The following is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape
To love without conditions leaves morality, ethics and practice without boundaries.
Not quite correct. Interestingly, Paul--the great apostle and framer of the policies of early Christianity--the same one who wrote the famous words about Christian love in 1 Corinthians 13, also said to the freeloaders in at Thessaloniaca (see 2 Thess. 3:6-15) also wrote: "Whoever refuses to work is not allowed to eat."
The New Testament Greek for 'love' is AGAPE. Modern Greeks, when they want to say, "I love you" still say, "Agapo". The 'o'--short for 'ego', on the end of the word, serves the same function as our 'I'
Unlike EROS--sensual love, from which we get our word 'erotic'--and PHILIA--love of a friend, and from which we get 'philosophy', AGAPE does not depend on how we feel, but on what we WILL to things and for others. I like to say that it arises in our willings, not just in our feelings.
The following is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape
You're describing uselful boundaries for those who cannot yet love unconditionally, not the boundarylessness of one who has risen above the conditions created by fear and separation, as was the case for Jesus. His love had no conditions or boundaries.
To love without conditions makes no set rules for all of humanity but meets one where they are at. It is wise to prescribe the medicine needed for a certain illness but ignorant to prescribe the same medicine under the assumption that everyone suffers from the same beliefs and illness.
Jesus had no predisposed rule for everyone and all moments. He was sufficiently flexible to allow what needed to be created in the moment to meet every need, which is why he told his disciples not to plan for tommorrow for the needs of tommorrow don't exist now.
Giving no reward for those who would not make an effort was true compassion. Rather than meeting one at their level of ignorance one stands outside of the belief and from wisdom offers a hand so that one might crawl out of the hole of ignorance.
You would not make this same rule for a quadraplegic if the labor was to dig ditches. Unless you healed him of his disease.
QUOTE(Onfire @ May 16, 2006, 02:19 PM)
There is no different between the Holy spirit and the Great Spirit, they are both the same
The holy spirit was said to be fist given to John the Baptist and Then was given to Jesus Christ
But john the Baptist said who he was, pointing to Jesus that he was greater than him.
who or what does the Holy Spirit mean to you?
John 14:16-26[16] And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
[26] But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
And again in John 15:John[26] But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
He is the 3rd part in the Trinity of God.. the one who comforts and convicts us.
QUOTE(Onfire @ May 16, 2006, 10:19 AM)
There is no different between the Holy spirit and the Great Spirit, they are both the same
The holy spirit was said to be fist given to John the Baptist and Then was given to Jesus Christ
But john the Baptist said who he was, pointing to Jesus that he was greater than him.
who or what does the Holy Spirit mean to you?
There are a lot more pagan trinites in Hinduism, Babylonian, Greek and Roman beliefs long before Jesus came around. I remember a quotation from one scholar that admitted that the idea existed before Christianity began and claimed that they were simply mirroring some deeper, future, truth. It is strange that all these pagan religions picked up on this "future truth", but Judaism, with all its prophets, didn't mention anything except strict monotheism. In fact, the idea of God coming in the flesh would be even more unpalatable to Jews since it could promote idolatry as people would attempt to create images of this flesh to worship, (which did happen).
Hi there Onfire,
I am new here, just today. Jeez sorry it seems your question was misunderstood the whole relig. stuff. Yes we talk about, I don´t really, so I´ll say we hear about the spirit SO much in the occidental world I see you were stating where the term holy spirit first came from and understand your curious as to what it may mean to different people. I believe there is no difference between the holy spirit, great spirit, good spirit, spirit spoken of by indians 1000´s of years ago. I can only tell you what it means to me in terms of my own spirit which I believe is that same spirit in all of us.
I sense this spirit when it is stirred for various reasons joy sadness etc. what it means to ME - this is singular and personal and factual to me only - it means a messenger or sorts and sometimes specific messages it means the spirit without communicating with itself within and the otherway around and the communication means to keep me aware of the spirit in all things and people in life. I am very often not aware of it then the lessons come and I turn inward to the spirit and begin agian to live through it. So that´s is about all I can say and lastly it MEANS a lot to me in terms of MY belief that the spirit is of what I call G-D the energy that connects us and all.
Take care
I am new here, just today. Jeez sorry it seems your question was misunderstood the whole relig. stuff. Yes we talk about, I don´t really, so I´ll say we hear about the spirit SO much in the occidental world I see you were stating where the term holy spirit first came from and understand your curious as to what it may mean to different people. I believe there is no difference between the holy spirit, great spirit, good spirit, spirit spoken of by indians 1000´s of years ago. I can only tell you what it means to me in terms of my own spirit which I believe is that same spirit in all of us.
I sense this spirit when it is stirred for various reasons joy sadness etc. what it means to ME - this is singular and personal and factual to me only - it means a messenger or sorts and sometimes specific messages it means the spirit without communicating with itself within and the otherway around and the communication means to keep me aware of the spirit in all things and people in life. I am very often not aware of it then the lessons come and I turn inward to the spirit and begin agian to live through it. So that´s is about all I can say and lastly it MEANS a lot to me in terms of MY belief that the spirit is of what I call G-D the energy that connects us and all.
Take care
I can't believe I've not answered this question before, but since its been brought back to the front page I thought I'd put my 2 cents in now.
I am a believer in 'something', I wasn't but I felt it whilst in a delusion, maybe I'm an idiot for believing anything in this state but my beliefs incorporate psychology and the spark of life behind my eyes.
The Holy Spirit to me is the process that is animating things; its the thought processes, the automated bodily processes, physical movements, planetary orbits, the creation of ideas and items and the new patterns and paths we create from our interaction with our Universe. It is the pressure forcing life out of every crevice available, and its not stupid to think of it this way. These observations are what caused religions such as Christianity to be written down, making the same observations with science as a backing can only bring the view into a tighter focus.
It is not something separate from science, it is the ultimate source of energy in the Universe. We will never reach a point where science and religion stop arguing. Arguing is just silly because it takes more than science and more than spirituality to bring together a cohesive understanding of the unknowable. I'd also like to point out that most sciences were developed from religious beliefs, especially the high priests of various cultures, the curiosity of man and the belief in the Universe/God being knowable created the perfect incubation site for the first sciences. Mathematics was practically developed for mapping the stars to help us create a stable food source, this was then developed further in Astronomy/Astrology. Mathematics and physics are a requirement of science, so its funny to think that the 'Child' of religion is now attacking the 'Parent'.
The Holy Spirit is also the link between us and our children, the shared DNA of both parents, and in my opinion the spirits shape is a dual-spiral of opposing forces. Its not a co-incidence that an entity that is encoded in DNA can only take nourishment from other forms of DNA (food). The only exception is water which is the cosmic catalyst for life. Fractal and spiralling...
I am a believer in 'something', I wasn't but I felt it whilst in a delusion, maybe I'm an idiot for believing anything in this state but my beliefs incorporate psychology and the spark of life behind my eyes.
The Holy Spirit to me is the process that is animating things; its the thought processes, the automated bodily processes, physical movements, planetary orbits, the creation of ideas and items and the new patterns and paths we create from our interaction with our Universe. It is the pressure forcing life out of every crevice available, and its not stupid to think of it this way. These observations are what caused religions such as Christianity to be written down, making the same observations with science as a backing can only bring the view into a tighter focus.
It is not something separate from science, it is the ultimate source of energy in the Universe. We will never reach a point where science and religion stop arguing. Arguing is just silly because it takes more than science and more than spirituality to bring together a cohesive understanding of the unknowable. I'd also like to point out that most sciences were developed from religious beliefs, especially the high priests of various cultures, the curiosity of man and the belief in the Universe/God being knowable created the perfect incubation site for the first sciences. Mathematics was practically developed for mapping the stars to help us create a stable food source, this was then developed further in Astronomy/Astrology. Mathematics and physics are a requirement of science, so its funny to think that the 'Child' of religion is now attacking the 'Parent'.
The Holy Spirit is also the link between us and our children, the shared DNA of both parents, and in my opinion the spirits shape is a dual-spiral of opposing forces. Its not a co-incidence that an entity that is encoded in DNA can only take nourishment from other forms of DNA (food). The only exception is water which is the cosmic catalyst for life. Fractal and spiralling...
Let's not confuse religious feeling (which is well documented) with a hypothetical "spirit" (for which no evidence exists).
What some would call spirit, others would call life. Isn't it simply which side of the science/religion fence you associate with more? The word spirit also has many meanings and contexts, so lets not confuse your perceptions of what the holy spirit is with mine; and lets not confuse my view with the original idea either. Doesn't everything we think we know of the Holy Spirit come from very few cryptic sources? I'd love to explore some of them if they were all in one place, maybe Joesus can help.
The concept of the Holy Spirit seems to be an appreciation of all things living and all things that will live, like an ancient "Wow!". Its probably one of the more important concepts in Christianity thats as relevant to todays religion as it was back then, and its expressed in all other religions in various ways.
The concept of the Holy Spirit seems to be an appreciation of all things living and all things that will live, like an ancient "Wow!". Its probably one of the more important concepts in Christianity thats as relevant to todays religion as it was back then, and its expressed in all other religions in various ways.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.