The Nature of the Holy Spirit

[_JAK]

Some where back in this fast moving thread Nehor inferred "...science has not brought happiness..." or words to that affect. Really Bro??

Are you suggesting there was more "happiness" before the predominance of "science"?

It's quite likely in my "vision" ;-) to see Science revealing truth about what contributes to unhappiness--actually it already has, but not everyone pays attention. So, there will be more information to that purpose. That will bring more questions re the value of religion/church as now seen.

This could lead to more real-spirituality that might expand core values beyond the narrow confines of religion. Albeit confines that are becoming more flexible as intelligence dispells the dependence on miracles and rituals...

Discovery is the essence and purpose of existence, as I understand things... Warm regards, Roger

Roger,

The use of the term spiritual is ambiguous as it is used by different people. I have yet to see any clear, concise characterization of that term. No difference between its use and the references to emotions have I seen.

You stated,
It's quite likely in my "vision" ;-) to see Science revealing truth about what contributes to unhappiness--actually it already has, but not everyone pays attention. So, there will be more information to that purpose. That will bring more questions re the value of religion/church as now seen.

This could lead to more real-spirituality that might expand core values beyond the narrow confines of religion. Albeit confines that are becoming more flexible as intelligence dispells the dependence on miracles and rituals...

Some want all the benefits of science without acknowledging it. They claim things like God’s blessing for that which has clear link to information. A vaccine to prevent a disease is a product of medical science. God notions or spiritual whatever are irrelevant..

In your first paragraph, you use the word “unhappiness.” While I generally agree with your view in that construction, I would not phrase it as you have.

I have advanced the idea that science contributes directly to factors which bring happiness. Ill health and disease make people unhappy. Medical science offers both cures as well as treatment for disease which improves the quality AND the length of life.

Historically, religious myth (and doctrine) has attempted to inhibit and stifle the advance of science. Example: Planned parenthood and limiting the size of a family contributes to the quality of life by limiting the quantity (numbers) of life. Birth control is a matter of science and has a very high degree of reliability.

“Be fruitful and multiply” is bad news today when women can potentially have children to ages later than the life expectancy when that doctrine[/i] was constructed. Science gives [b]options in virtually every area of human life. Religious myth inhibits and prevents or prohibits options. Religious doctrine which prohibits scientific birth control is anti-science. It’s also anti quality of life in favor of quantity of life. More people are better according to a specific religious myth.

You stated,
This could lead to more real-spirituality that might expand core values beyond the narrow confines of religion. Albeit confines that are becoming more flexible as intelligence dispells the dependence on miracles and rituals...

What is “more real-spirituality”? It’s a meaningless phrase to me. First, what’s “spirituality”?

After you qualify that, I’ll ask how we recognize and distinguish “more” in that phrase.

The phrase still begs the question with the word “real.” What’s that? How do you distinguish between “real-spirituality” and fake or fraudulent?

“Core values” are exactly what?

JAK

[_JAK]

Jak blathered with conviction of a religious zealot:

Your escape from a deadly accident is not evidence for some supernatural intervention. No evidence has established such claims. The fact that people make such claims is evidence that they have been successfully indoctrinated. Keep sharply in mind that the dead tell no tales of miraculous protection. Hence, only those who escape to tell their story have a voice. That’s a most important fact to keep at the conscious level.

Well, if you say so. ok.

meanie. :(

Inconceivable,

You offer no refutation to the analysis.

My intent was to be direct and responsive.

JAK

[_Roger Morrison]

JAK, you said:

In your first paragraph, you use the word “unhappiness.” While I generally agree with your view in that construction, I would not phrase it as you have.

OK, maybe i might better have used, "dysfunctional"? I think the objective of science, and of good-folks, is to facilitate humanity living a quality of life that eliminates 'unhealthy' fears, anxieties and suffering caused by ignorance and/or indifference. Being as functional as our nature & nurture will allow us to be in our setting; whatever/wherever it might be as circumstances has determined...

"Core values" IS ambiguous, true. Maybe they represent honesty, integrity(?sic), empathy, justice...but i think they would be connected to a shared high quality of life leading away from dysfunctional...unhappiness???

My time at this public facility has run out. Gotta go, but i'm in agreement with your reasoning. It has helped my focus. Warm regards, Roger

[_JAK]

Roger stated:
OK, maybe I might better have used, "dysfunctional"? I think the objective of science, and of good-folks, is to facilitate humanity living a quality of life that eliminates 'unhealthy' fears, anxieties and suffering caused by ignorance and/or indifference. Being as functional as our nature & nurture will allow us to be in our setting; whatever/wherever it might be as circumstances has determined...

A nice thought about the objective of science and of good folks. However, science (applied) also gave and gives us deadly weapons of war (nuclear weapons). And we have used them. We threaten to use them. And the purpose of nuclear weapons is to destroy utterly.

Applied science can reduce fears. However, some fears are valid and it’s healthy to have some fears and anxiety. But ignorance and indifference are rarely healthy or beneficial. They are not generally helpful.

Most superstitions have been replaced with rational explanation at least in the educated community. Yet, there are still those who default to superstition and ignore or reject evidence.

Roger stated:
"Core values" IS ambiguous, true. Maybe they represent honesty, integrity(?sic), empathy, justice...but I think they would be connected to a shared high quality of life leading away from dysfunctional...unhappiness???

One would think so. What are the core values of a president who misrepresented facts, mislead a nation, and mislead the world in order to launch a preemptive attack on a country? We can hardly characterize what President Bush said as “honest.” We can hardly characterize what he said as with “integrity.” And yet, he campaigned on “core values” as a phrase. He vowed to restore “integrity” to the White House.

Even so, the deception, lies, and vicious personal attacks on his opponents or anyone who dared voice descent demonstrated no “empathy.”

Now, I realize you were not talking about politicians. I initiated that because Bush and company have used the very words you do to justify great lack of those qualities.

A phrase like “core values” is one which is manipulative and deceptive. It was not so as you used that phrase. This is no criticism of your points. The problem with such terms even of “justice” is that they are ambiguous.

For many, God bless America and waving the flag is patriotism. “Support our troops” translates to support Bush policies OR you are unpatriotic. Of course we know that’s not correct.

We also know that the most patriotic may be the ones who challenge the misrepresentations of the powerful. Such words as we discuss here are buzz words. They tend to be manipulative and are used, not for the good which you (and I) may hope, but are used for dark and deceptive purposes.

JAK

[_son]

My evidence for the Holy Ghost claim is an experiment I attempted. Go pray to God and attempt to remove all prejudice from your mind and ask him to reveal himself to you.

If you are unwilling or unable to do that then there is nothing I can do for you.

The claim “Holy Spirit” is prejudicial. It comes out of religious mythology entirely prejudicial. Likewise, the claim God was invented to perpetuate religious doctrine. Evidence supports the emergence and modification of God inventions man constructed.

Hence, we must disregard ancient or present claims and ask without prejudice for the compelling evidence which can be objectively presented for the claims inherent in your language.

By removing all prejudice from one’s thinking, one must ask those who make claims for gods (much earlier in human history) and those who make claims for God (current religious mythologies) to present that compelling evidence for all to see clearly.

Valid “experiment” should be observed by all in objective light. Personal, emotional introspection following religious indoctrination is not prejudice free. The opposite is the case. So as we eliminate prejudice, we require clear, concise, objective information which can be observed and tested.

For example, we can test gravity and do. We can test it alone or collectively and find reliable, clear results. This “experiment” is transparent and open to non pre-judgment.

You make the claims here for both “God” and for “Holy Spirit”. In making those claims it is you who have the burden of proof and the responsibility for presentation of free from prejudice evidence.

Private, personal “experiment” is irrelevant and pointless. You can conjure up anything to which your environment has exposed you. The challenge is for you to present compelling, transparent, and clear evidence for claims you make.

Absent that clear evidence, you fail credibility. Your imperative is irrelevant.

Nehor stated:
Go pray to God and attempt to remove all prejudice from your mind and ask him to reveal himself to you.

Your statement assumes the reliability of your claim “God”. Yet you have presented nothing to support the claim. Your personal, emotional experience is entirely irrelevant.

How would you respond if I were to suggest that you go and pray to the Tooth Fairy and attempt to remove all prejudice from your mind and ask him to reveal himself to you?

What would you say? Just substitute Tooth Fairy in your command.

What you should do is require evidence for the implicit claim. The implicit claim is that “Tooth Fairy” is or exists.

So you ought to require of me compelling evidence for the claim: “Tooth Fairy.”

I suspect you would if your post here is honest. Or, you might say: I do not accept your (my) claim of "Tooth Fairy". And, you might say: What is your evidence there IS a “Tooth Fairy”? The burden of proof would be mine to present compelling, transparent evidence for my claim “Tooth Fairy.”

Of course, I do not claim that for which there is no compelling transparent evidence. But, you do.

The burden of proof lies with you to support your claims.

Your previous claim that “Holy Spirit” is male is as spurious as your claim of “Holy Spirit.” Why is sex relevant, or how is it relevant to your other claim?

Again, piling one claim on top of another in no way reinforces the first claim. It’s a fatal flaw.

Nehor stated:
My evidence for the Holy Ghost claim is an experiment I attempted. Go pray to God and attempt to remove all prejudice from your mind and ask him to reveal himself to you.

If you are unwilling or unable to do that then there is nothing I can do for you.

If you, Nehor, are unwilling or unable to present a clear, transparent case for your claims, those claims should be disregarded.

JAK

Have you ever been still? Asked God if He is? Thought beyond doubt?
True joy only comes from knowing truth, and living it. If you have a fulness of joy, then you have found your place.
If you have not, you may decide to keep searching. Here is a key, it is within you, and you are more loved than comprehensible at this time.
Godspeed

son

[_Inconceivable]

Jak blathered with conviction of a religious zealot:

Your escape from a deadly accident is not evidence for some supernatural intervention. No evidence has established such claims. The fact that people make such claims is evidence that they have been successfully indoctrinated. Keep sharply in mind that the dead tell no tales of miraculous protection. Hence, only those who escape to tell their story have a voice. That’s a most important fact to keep at the conscious level.

Well, if you say so. ok.

meanie. :(

Inconceivable,

You offer no refutation to the analysis.

My intent was to be direct and responsive.

JAK

You have only the need of a good blaster at your side..

I prefer to learn the ways of The Force as a backup to the fallability of my targeting computer

[_marg]

You have only the need of a good blaster at your side..

I prefer to learn the ways of The Force as a backup to the fallability of my targeting computer

Now that's blathering.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Valid “experiment” should be observed by all in objective light. Personal, emotional introspection following religious indoctrination is not prejudice free. The opposite is the case. So as we eliminate prejudice, we require clear, concise, objective information which can be observed and tested.

So everytime you make an observation, you remove your prejudice that the individual photons you are observing cohere to form objects with known properties and instead try to work out a theory of your sensory experience free of previously accpeted background theory? That's amazing. It must've taken you days, if not years, to write this post alone.

[_JAK]

Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:49 am Light in the Darkness stated:
So everytime you make an observation, you remove your prejudice that the individual photons you are observing cohere to form objects with known properties and instead try to work out a theory of your sensory experience free of previously accpeted (accepted) background theory? That's amazing. It must've taken you days, if not years, to write this post alone.

To the first sentence, of course we can use to advantage generalizations which we have previously used. We start our cars without much thought. We do many things routinely as we assume workability in applied science.

Length of time to write a post seems irrelevant to the considerations of the post. We tend to conclude that since our door key has opened our house before, it will function as it has previously.

I stated: “Personal, emotional introspection following religious indoctrination is not prejudice free. The opposite is the case.”

In that comment, I was addressing claims and assertions of religious dogma/doctrine. So your comment is a misstatement of what I said. Your statement: “So everytime you make an observation, you remove your prejudice...”

Of course we employ generalizations as we function daily. The issue which I addressed was leaps to conclusions which have no established evidence. Religious doctrine is claims absent evidence.

Valid experience should be observed by all in objective light can be applied to the key which opens the door. It has worked many times, consistently, without fail, and for reason. To assume the key will open the door, the toilet will flush, the air-conditioning will cool is to make generally reliable assumptions. All of these might fail. But we have reason to consider that they will work.

The reason is in consistent and transparent with an objectively observable result.

JAK

[_Roger Morrison]

JAK, first , thanks for the sites you suggested. They can't help but provoke thought. A couple are now on my "Favourites" list. The evolution of Religion is of particular personal interest as i'm working on an essay (booklet?) on the subject; so they fall in line... Second, I'll insert in bold into what you said:

A nice thought about the objective of science and of good folks. However, science (applied) also gave and gives us deadly weapons of war (nuclear weapons). And we have used them. We threaten to use them. And the purpose of nuclear weapons is to destroy utterly. RM: I think science is more the passive element here in the hands of 'bad-folks'. As ever it is the human element that is threatening the future, as they have been the destructive force in history... Outside of plagues that might well have been produced in ignorance and violation of hygenics--a guess of course...

Applied science can reduce fears. However, some fears are valid and it’s healthy to have some fears and anxiety. But ignorance and indifference are rarely healthy or beneficial. They are not generally helpful. RM: Agreed. It is ignorance & indifference that good-folks (like you,& others) are attempting to dispell...

Most superstitions have been replaced with rational explanation at least in the educated community. RM: If only that was the case in all "educated communities". Unfortunately there is also the Indoctrinated Community, disguised as educated, to which many have loyalty. Yet, there are still those who default to superstition and ignore or reject evidence. RM: Because they are, where-they-are. Products of their personal nature and nurture, they have yet to fully come into their own. And, in many cases that 'default' position is one they cannot step beyond. Just the way it is. But as long as some advance, society advances. e.g. Galeleo, Darwin, Edison, Salk, MLKJr...

Roger stated:
"Core values" IS ambiguous, true. Maybe they represent honesty, integrity(?sic), empathy, justice...but I think they would be connected to a shared high quality of life leading away from dysfunctional...unhappiness???

One would think so. What are the core values of a president who misrepresented facts, mislead a nation, and mislead the world in order to launch a preemptive attack on a country? RM: That's what Emporers do. Always have. Always will, until "indoctrination" becomes unprejudiced "education"... We can hardly characterize what President Bush said as “honest.” RM: Not by my standard or by yours. BUT by his, he was "honest" to HIS purpose! We can hardly characterize what he said as with “integrity.” RM: Actually, HIS "integrity" was not violated--that is his core--end justifying means. What was violated is public-trust stupidly placed, as GWB anticipated... And yet, he campaigned on “core values” as a phrase. He vowed to restore “integrity” to the White House. RM: Yep. Tell a really big 'un an' those born every minute will swear alegience to "God", King/Queen/President & Country cuz they're 'educated' ta do dat...

Even so, the deception, lies, and vicious personal attacks on his opponents or anyone who dared voice descent demonstrated no “empathy.” RM: Right again. Could be his religion is more about the next-life than this one??? Maybe "love-your-enemies" hasn't been sermon material in his church??

Now, I realize you were not talking about politicians. I initiated that because Bush and company have used the very words you do to justify great lack of those qualities.

A phrase like “core values” is one which is manipulative and deceptive. It was not so as you used that phrase. This is no criticism of your points. The problem with such terms even of “justice” is that they are ambiguous.

For many, God bless America and waving the flag is patriotism. RM: This itself should make one suspect. Patriotism is a most profane, inane expression of mindlessness as to make a thinking person run for cover... “Support our troops” translates to support Bush policies OR you are unpatriotic. Of course we know that’s not correct. RM: Too few, too late...

We also know that the most patriotic may be the ones who challenge the misrepresentations of the powerful. Such words as we discuss here are buzz words. They tend to be manipulative and are used, not for the good which you (and I) may hope, but are used for dark and deceptive purposes.

JAK, you asked, a few posts back about my useage of the term "really spiritual". I'm afraid i used that in general ignorance assuming EVERYONE would know what i meant--a most common fault in many of us, sad to say. You, OTOH are very secific and direct in articulating your thoughts--actually a great example to me. Thanks!

"Spiritual" to me has little, if anything to do with religion or church, except you might find some there with the quality that i call "Spiritual". That is, a quality of empathetic confidence that tends to acceptance of themselves and others as capable and responsible people in their areas of expertise. And, more important than that 'trust', everyone is worthy of respect, recognition and prejudice-free justice whatever their position on the social/professional scale.

Generally speaking a "Spiritual" person is concerned about the 'Spirit' of another person. That the other person (all others) be validated, unthreatened, encouraged and assisted when need be--without discrimination.

I've been fortunate enough to have met and known quite-a-few; another vague colloquialism ;) Warm regards, Roger