Protestantism

» redback - Peachy

Hi Pink

"...we are born with an innate awareness..." mentioned by Brian...is a recurring theme in Christianity. So, if we allege (by any term) to be "unaware", are we simply according to the Christian faith...sinful...deliberately denying...what all aware Christians believe to be a truth...whether or not we are of the Christian faith. "You're either for us or against us, infidel!" heresy risking behaviour type of thinking?

Maybe our innate awareness, like birds...are not all sparrows?

I don't know whether in my callow youth, I ever blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. I don't know the fate of a 'born again' Christian who may have committed the unforgivable sin before his BAC state. But your linking it to "speaking on behalf of" gives me a different interpretation of 'blaspheme'.

"...to speak impiously* or irreverently of (God or sacred things)" (*non pious)

and doing so per the Bible quote prior post to an unforgivable level...against the Holy Spirit.

"How can anyone have permission to speak on behalf of the Holy Spirit?"

I get a sense instead of defamation or using names as profane expletives, what's detailed in Chapter 272, section 36 of the Massachusetts General Laws and the like...to understand 'blasphemy'.

I understand this week is the 487th anniversary of Martin Luther's excommunication. So, given their trinitarianism status, I checked it out:

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines it as: "Blasphemy...signifies etymologically gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem."
and Paul, per 1 Corinthians 4:13 was blasphemed against as he exhorted people to follow him as he followed Christ.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.h...

I know people far more embedded in doctrine may read this (from above link) differently than I:

"Among the Visigoths, anyone blaspheming the name of Christ or expressing contempt of the Trinity had his head shorn, was subjected to a hundred stripes, and suffered perpetual imprisonment in chains."

but maybe twas not intended to be taken literally. Jeff is glad he did not live in those times to test it.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - Brian's Comment

In response to Peachy posted by redback:
.
Brian's comment that, "...we are born with an innate awareness...", doesn't float with me. It is one of the false premises that people use as a foundation on which they build a make believe world.
.
What we are born with is a brain that is still in the process of development--it is not a completely developed part of the body at birth.
.
What the brain is, has to do with pathways--it is an extremely complex mass of neural possibilities just waiting to be programmed with some idea or5 another. The way the brain is programmed sets us up to be curious about our origins. It is one of the first pathways that are created in the brain to provide us with our mind with is the navigator that guides us through our life's experiences.
.
So, as far as I'm concerned, the original premise is false. And I cannot built on a false premise except for pretend. At 76, I am not very into pretending. I am hard on to reality--period. Life is precious and fleeting. We are reminded of that every day if we only turn on our television for a short while. I don't make believe any more. Do you?
.

.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - Brian's Comment

In response to Brian's Comment posted by pink101:

"I don't make believe any more. Do you?"

No. "Brian's comment" creates the religious imagery...intended or otherwise...that we must know better so surely we're in wilful disobedience to God's law if we don't do X, Y or Z. I understand the far more positive concept of God's gift of life, intelligence and a 'free will' to use and develop it etc but the Christian positive always seems to come with strings or ropes attached...all with knots in the wrong places for me.

I come from a place where I believe the heart is simply a life critical muscle that pumps blood etc...not an organ of romantic and ethereal delights. I don't mind occasional forays into make believe and the GIGO of some TV shows and fictional novels (GIGO = Garbage In...Garbage Out) when they don't claim any different.

"... I cannot built on a false premise..."

This was the conundrum I expressed earlier but referred to 'sand' instead. How can I make Bible 11 discussions value-added when I've been Babel-ised.

I have my own ideas about Jeff and 76 years old but I don't want to jinx myself by oft repeating it.

PS: Has Ben Hughes page disappeared?

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - Brian's Comment

In response to Brian's Comment posted by redback:

.
Ben is still there.
.
But, not a lot of activity.
.
Maybe Suite101 is in its last days?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Pagan roots

In response to Pagan roots posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Migisi, you've jumped from a fact (similarity) to a conclusion (Christianity borrowed from the other religions). That conclusion does not necessarily follow.
.
Why not? You agree 'similarity' is a fact. Since Christianity was new compared to other ancient religions having triune gods, why wouldn't it follow that the new would borrow from the old?
.
There are two other possibilities:
1. coincidence (however remote the likelihood, it's still a possibility), or... 2. human awareness
.
Possibilities, sure. But neither address Man's development of triune, triad gods... unless God's 'image' implanted in Man was a multiple image -- a triple exposure?

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Pagan roots

In response to Pagan roots posted by Migisi:

.
I think we have to RETHINK the idea of what it means to be spirit.
.
It seems to me that we have this idea that a spirit is something that exists independently of any other entity. So, it also seems to me that this is the problem area that is causing us so much confusion in regards to the Trinity and, more specifically, the Holy Spirit. I know that few agree with me; but, the spirit is a product of any relationship and can not exist independently of a relationship. Instead, it exemplifies the relationship.
.
So, that, when any person has a relationship with the One, they will experience the Great Spirit. I think that is the message Native Americans are able to give us if we will pay heed. Otherwise, it's all ya ta da.
.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Pagan roots

In response to Pagan roots posted by pink101:

.
In the Gospels (NIV), we find the Spirit (capital S) as stand alone, often preceded by 'Holy', and 'my' (when God spoke), and followed by 'of God', 'of your Father', 'of the Lord'. We find the same qualifiers in the Hebrew scriptures. The Gospel writers, and Jesus, were referring specifically to the Hebrew God's Spirit. Jesus was not referring to himself.
.
In Acts and the Epistles, we find Jesus' followers not only referring to the Hebrew God's Spirit (capital S) --
'of our God', 'of the living God','of the Lord', 'of God' -- but they refer to the same capital S Spirit as 'of Jesus', 'of Christ', 'of Jesus Christ', 'of His Son'. Thus asserting and completing their deification of their holy man, Jesus.
.
Spirit isn't a separate Being apart from God. Spirit defines God's substance. God IS Spirit - Spirit IS God. One and the same. So, I can't understand how Spirit can be considered a third ~person~ of a 'trinity'.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Pagan roots

In response to Pagan roots posted by Migisi:

.
I can't understand how Spirit can be considered a third ~person~ of a 'trinity'.
.
That's why I suggested we RETHINK the idea of what it means to be spirit.
.
In the Gospels (NIV), we find the Spirit (capital S) as stand alone, often preceded by 'Holy', and 'my' (when God spoke), and followed by 'of God', 'of your Father', 'of the Lord'. We find the same qualifiers in the Hebrew scriptures. The Gospel writers, and Jesus, were referring specifically to the Hebrew God's Spirit. Jesus was not referring to himself.
.
Give some of your examples out of the Bible with chapter and verse. I would like to check them out.
.

-- posted by pink101

» redback - Pagan roots

In response to Pagan roots posted by Migisi:

There is something about the Holy Bible and the Readers Digest that suggest capitalisations have different values...the former examples an identifier of reverence, the latter simply a proper noun.

I'm a tad unsure of the spirit within us as it seems to me there's at least two. Crikey, could there be three? Some have a great "fire in the belly" to do bad things or areligious good things. It aint indigestion and IMO is just a part of us as is the words we're about to say or the action we're about to do. Our intent. The 'why' of a smile...not the action of it. We talk about our intent not living up to our actions...'body willing spirit weak' and its variations. A manner of talking.

I see the Holy Spirit the Bible talks about as being a separate entity to me and there being no Biblical evidence for that Spirit being weak. But that Spirit as far as I understand it is simply a part of God. I can't say similar to mine coz that gets into the argument of quality and quantity, not to mention immeasurable value...a value I know I don't have.

-- posted by redback

» redback - Ben's Comment

In response to Brian's Comment posted by pink101:

"Ben is still there."

Well, I have since found Ben...here...within M & S.

-- posted by redback