what is the holy spirit for you ?

[GlorytoGod]

what are you guys talking about ?

are you on topic or does it need another thread ?

 

[Nick_A]

what are you guys talking about ?

are you on topic or does it need another thread ?

An essential part of the question of what the Holy Spirit means for you is to become open to the idea that it makes no difference since as we are, we do not understand it but instead have acquired all sorts of imaginary conceptions that replace a spiritual experience with an emotional one.

You seem to want answers reflecting different forms of self justification. I don't see the Holy spirit offering self justification.

 

[GlorytoGod]

You seem to want answers reflecting different forms of self justification. I don't see the Holy spirit offering self justification.

i am interested in peoples personal experiences.

 

[mee]

what is the holy spirit for you ? A force in motion

 

[leastone]

Nick-A wrote:

Here is a standard definition of intellect:
Quote:

[T]he power or faculty of the mind by which one knows or understands,

as distinguished from that by which one feels and that by which one wills;

the understanding; the faculty of thinking and acquiring knowledge.


Dear Nick,

The definition you offer clearly distiguishes between the faculties man lives by, yet, while it distinguishes, it in no wise posits the rational as superior to the volitional. It cannot, for man understands in order to do; comprehends what is true and good (for him) and thus, believing that it is true and good (for him), acts, that is, wills to do what is good and true, because he loves what is good and true (for him).

In short, man does (only) what he loves, and loves what he understands to be good and true, that is, his truth, which is according to his understanding. This constitutes his life.

Now, just as the natural sun provides trees with both light and warmth for proper vitality and growth, so man receives Light (in his understanding) and Warmth (affection in his heart, to will), to act on his understanding.

That is why the Spirit of Holiness ministers to both head and heart; as the Spirit of Truth, to give Light (enlightenment); as the Spirit of Love, to bring forth Good that is willed in love, for what is goodwill, good deeds, and charity, but love in action, according to the truths of faith (held in the understanding)?

In winter there may be quite enough light, but in the absence of sufficient heat, there is no growth, and if any life remains, it is hardly discernable. So it is with those who seek Light only; who revel in the delights of spiritual knowledge, yet their hearts are cold as stone or ice, with no love toward God and neighbor.

In order to bear fruit, love must act on truths understood, else no Good comes from it. Good has Truth as its form; it expresses itself in Truth, and in turn, Truth expresses itself as Good. Thus LOVE (the ultimate Good) is expressed in WISDOM (the ultimate Truth), and Wisdom expresses itself in Love.

The Spirit of Holiness is the Spirit of Christ, and "he who has not the Spirit of Christ has no part in Him," and is thus hardly a Christian. This is the Spirit who guides us into all Truth, to set us free with the liberty that is in Christ, so that we may freely Love (to will) Good.

Love and Wisdom are mere intellectual ideas and thus nothing, until acted on or given away.

Respectfully,

Learner

 

[Dondi]

Funny that this subject comes up in a time when I've discovered a re-evaluation of the purpose and operation of the Holy Spirit in my own orientation. I've just finished reading "A Normal Christian Life" by Watchman Nee, which is basically an exegesis of Romans chapters 1 through 8. In it, Nee contrasts the concept of 'sins' (Romans 1:1-5:11) with 'sin' (Romans 5:12-8:39), the former being the actual infractions and the latter being the drive of the human heart to commit those infractions. And while the Blood of Christ deals with the sins, what we have done, the sin, who we are, needs to be dealt with through the Cross. Here Nee uses the word 'Cross' in our identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, that indeed we are raised to new life with that identification. And it is through the Cross that our status of being "'in Christ" is established.

The Holy Spirit's role in all this is that He is the catalyst for making us 'new creatures' in Christ. The Holy Spirit is that change element that we so desperately need to live the life in God. We absolutely cannot live the Christian life without the Holy Spirit's indwelling. The Blood of Christ draws us near to God,and is the basis of our forgiveness, the Holy Spirit keeps us there, and is the basis for our deliverance and maintenance.

The reason so many Christians struggle with sin (and I'm talking about behavior here) is that they do not recognize the resource the Holy Spirit provides in breaking the habit of sin. The danger one faces in trying to 'kick the habit' is that the flesh is weak and inadequate to deal with the situation and as a result the Christian faces the same situation that Paul describes in Romans 7. The fact is, we shouldn't be relying on our flesh at all, but resting in the Spirit's power. If God is truly in us, then He will have the power within us to overcome sin. Or rather overcome the law of sin and death with the law of the Spirit of life.

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." - Romans 8:1-2

What the flesh could not do, the Spirit can. The more we try not to do something sinful, the more we will find failure. But if we fall back on God's Spirit within us, we will see that power manifest in us and find the power to defeat that which draws us toward that sin.

 

[Nick_A]

Nick-A wrote:

Here is a standard definition of intellect:
Quote:

[T]he power or faculty of the mind by which one knows or understands,

as distinguished from that by which one feels and that by which one wills;

the understanding; the faculty of thinking and acquiring knowledge.


Dear Nick,

The definition you offer clearly distiguishes between the faculties man lives by, yet, while it distinguishes, it in no wise posits the rational as superior to the volitional. It cannot, for man understands in order to do; comprehends what is true and good (for him) and thus, believing that it is true and good (for him), acts, that is, wills to do what is good and true, because he loves what is good and true (for him).

In short, man does (only) what he loves, and loves what he understands to be good and true, that is, his truth, which is according to his understanding. This constitutes his life.

Now, just as the natural sun provides trees with both light and warmth for proper vitality and growth, so man receives Light (in his understanding) and Warmth (affection in his heart, to will), to act on his understanding.

That is why the Spirit of Holiness ministers to both head and heart; as the Spirit of Truth, to give Light (enlightenment); as the Spirit of Love, to bring forth Good that is willed in love, for what is goodwill, good deeds, and charity, but love in action, according to the truths of faith (held in the understanding)?

In winter there may be quite enough light, but in the absence of sufficient heat, there is no growth, and if any life remains, it is hardly discernable. So it is with those who seek Light only; who revel in the delights of spiritual knowledge, yet their hearts are cold as stone or ice, with no love toward God and neighbor.

In order to bear fruit, love must act on truths understood, else no Good comes from it. Good has Truth as its form; it expresses itself in Truth, and in turn, Truth expresses itself as Good. Thus LOVE (the ultimate Good) is expressed in WISDOM (the ultimate Truth), and Wisdom expresses itself in Love.

The Spirit of Holiness is the Spirit of Christ, and "he who has not the Spirit of Christ has no part in Him," and is thus hardly a Christian. This is the Spirit who guides us into all Truth, to set us free with the liberty that is in Christ, so that we may freely Love (to will) Good.

Love and Wisdom are mere intellectual ideas and thus nothing, until acted on or given away.

Respectfully,

Learner

Nice thoughts but for me it is like people talking about the Holy Spirit. It is more honest to admit ones lack but this is too ego deflating:

Mark 9:


23" 'If you can'?" said Jesus. "Everything is possible for him who believes." 24Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"

We forget that we are the "wretched man" as described by Paul in romans 7 making everything just words. Today we speak of compassion and tomorrow we kill. Welcome to the real world.

That is why I'm more interested in people willing to admit that they lose the Spirit and pervert the idea of it for egostic gain as natural for the wretched man. Rather than lofty ideas, we know our fallen nature is our personal reality and provides the solid foundation of humility upon which someone can begin to become Christian..

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

Yes Christianity for me is intellectual.

But Christianity is not an intellectual exercise, nor should it be intellectualised ... then it becomes an abstraction. It ends up as s series of trick techniques, and an exercise in self-justification.

Christianity addresses the whole person, but more than that, it addresses the person in relation ... to God, to one's neighbour ... to the world.

Christianity is not intellectual (although it can be, that is not all it is, however), it is relational.

The trouble is that the intellect has become so devalued, society as a whole no longer values the quality of intellect necessary for Christianity but rather just glorifies associative thought.

Christianity is not dependent upon a quality of intellect. Love is not an operation of the intellect, but of the will.

Learning by example is far more powerful and dynamic activity.

But be that as it may, Christianity has consistently tried to preserve against the 'dumbing down' of the intellect, and got all manner of criticism for so doing ... as I do here, often.

Traditional Christianity = the illumination of the intellect.
New Age Christianity = associative thought, and novelty.

+++

Do you really think that this just means "Sinning against the Holy Spirit is refusing the offer of Salvation."

Yes. God will stomach any offence, and never turn away ... but if you turn away from Him, then ...

Does this mean that all that walk around condemning Christianity and the Holy spirit are guilty of eternal sin.

That depends on who is saying what, and why. It's not for me to judge the hearts of men. I make assessments, but I may well be wrong.

You are ignoring the purpose and value of attentiveness.

No I am not. I am concentrating on "the one thing needful". Attentiveness to the fact that we can do nothing without divine assistance is the first rule, but when 'attentiveness' becomes a technique, then I think the point of attentiveness has been lost.

If we each and every one of us attended to the needs of our neighbour, without thought for ourselves, all would be well.

Paul is describing an intellectual function that begins to discriminate between night and day...

Again, I think this intellectualises the text, and misses the common sense point.

Don't get me wrong. I love that kind of stuff. Last night I was contemplating the inner meaning of Peter's release from prison by an angel — every word is dripping with symbolic import 'first ward', 'second ward', 'iron gate' ... but I never let myself forget the main point is ... the literal text.

I think Paul is saying what John says, in the Spirit we walk in the light, and out of it, we walk in darkness. And what is the Spirit? Love (1 John 4:8).

Read v11 of your own chosen text: "Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing."

A bit more of that, and we wouldn't need to intellectualise anything. It would be as plain as day.

As John says ... how can you tell a Christian? Because they love one another.

We attend to what we love, and we attend to ourselves too much. Any discipline that causes me to pay more attention to myself, and less to God, is suspect.

I am suggesting the danger is shaping Christianity to suit my intellectual disposition, rather than conforming my intellect to the essential message of Christ which is love and service to God and one's neighbour ... humility and the will of God.

It is the opposite. Simone acquired common sense through a quality of attention few are capable of.

I disagree. I think she lacked common sense. I think starving herself to death is evidence of that.

You might think that Simone had too much head but not enough heart but she had a heart capable of the following: "Purity is the power to contemplate defilement."

Sorry, but that strikes me as intellectual posturing.

Love sees but does not judge, and sees beyond the defilement. Purity might see it. Love can heal it.

Who in the church now has the necessary quality of heart to impartially do such a thing and without judgement? Yet she could.

We obviously have different values.

I think Mother Theresa's simple act of picking up a dying man, of treating him with dignity, outweights every intellectual essay ever written.

And look how much we carp and criticise, judge and bemoan, ridicule and complain ... the enormous amounts of criticism she garnered, the insistence that her motives were this ... or that ... she didn't do this ... she should have done that ...

... but I don't see her critics getting off their own backsides to help anyone.

I think we should attend to the fact that three score years and ten is a twinkling in the scheme of things, we should get over our existential angst, and get on with doing something instead of intellectualising at length and actually doing nothing.

The church has become oblivious of the nature and importance of the intellect.

Sorry Nick ... that does make me smile. Have you read Benedict XVI? Have you read his texts, in particular, that challenge the quasi-intellectual posturing of the West? His constant critique of Relativism? I think you lost sight of the church a long while ago ...

Anything that makes 'doing' Christianity more complex than it need be, is barking up the wrong tree, in my book.

Thomas

 

[leastone]

people talking about the Holy Spirit....
It is more honest to admit ones lack ....willing to admit that they lose the Spirit...
we are the "wretched man"....
we know our fallen nature is our personal reality and provides the solid foundation of humility upon which someone can begin to become Christian..

"someone can begin to become a Christian"...and talk in the Holy Spirit...

Do you allow for the remote possibility of speech in the Holy Spirit?

Was it the Cure of Ars' intellectual prowess that made him "the doctor of all of France?"

Do not feel that you should answer, Nick, I know, you're looking for, and are more interested in people willing to admit that they lose the Spirit and pervert the idea of it.



Learner

 

[Nick_A]

"someone can begin to become a Christian"...and talk in the Holy Spirit...

Do you allow for the remote possibility of speech in the Holy Spirit?

Was it the Cure of Ars' intellectual prowess that made him "the doctor of all of France?"

Do not feel that you should answer, Nick, I know, you're looking for, and are more interested in people willing to admit that they lose the Spirit and pervert the idea of it.



Learner

If we were unable to receive the Spirit then all of this would be useless. I am saying that most of what people call receiving the Spirit is actually expressions of emotional energy which is not the energy of the Spirit.

A classic example for me is the modern day "Course in Miracles." It sells books by the truck loads and is asserted to be the recordings of Jesus Christ himself. People attend lectures all the time. However there is another side to this wishful thinking:

Mrs. Schucman, co-author of "A Course in Miracles", who said "suffering did not exist" died a painful death from pancreatic cancer barely a year after publishing the book "A Course in Miracles". Schucman, a Columbia University professor and psychologist, was an acquaintance of Fr. Benedict J. Groeschel, C.F.R.. Fr. Groeschel gave a eulogy at her funeral. Fr. Groeschel wrote, "This woman who had written so eloquently that suffering really did not exist spent the last two years of her life in the blackest psychotic depression I have ever witnessed." Fr. Groeschel is a holy, practical, wise, no nonsense priest, and psychologist. During an October 1994 lecture on "Discernment" given at Holy Cross Church, Rumson, N.J., Fr. Groeschel stated that he believed that Helen Shucman's experience with the channeled "spirit" was possibly a true diabolic manifestation.

I am very wary of imagined expressions of the Holy Spirit or channeling Jesus Christ. I've seen first hand the dangers of these efforts. This is rough stuff and a person can easily cause themselves far more harm than good and the Bible explains why:

Matthew 12:

43"When an evil[f] spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation."

Initially an experience with the Holy Spirit cleans us out. However there is no assurance it will stay that way. I've seen preachers like this who I believe at one time experienced the spirit but now do not seems so pure.

Christianity is not some cutsey pooh secular feel good scheme. An interest in Christianity and the Holy Spirit can change a person on the inside. Regardless of good intentions, through our ignorance, it may not be for the good.

 

[leastone]

Thank you for responding, Nick. I now have a more balanced understanding of your point of departure.

Sincerely,

Learner

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Nick —


But Christianity is not an intellectual exercise, nor should it be intellectualised ... then it becomes an abstraction. It ends up as s series of trick techniques, and an exercise in self-justification.

Christianity addresses the whole person, but more than that, it addresses the person in relation ... to God, to one's neighbour ... to the world.

Christianity is not intellectual (although it can be, that is not all it is, however), it is relational.


Christianity is not dependent upon a quality of intellect. Love is not an operation of the intellect, but of the will.

Learning by example is far more powerful and dynamic activity.

But be that as it may, Christianity has consistently tried to preserve against the 'dumbing down' of the intellect, and got all manner of criticism for so doing ... as I do here, often.

Traditional Christianity = the illumination of the intellect.
New Age Christianity = associative thought, and novelty.

+++


Yes. God will stomach any offence, and never turn away ... but if you turn away from Him, then ...


That depends on who is saying what, and why. It's not for me to judge the hearts of men. I make assessments, but I may well be wrong.


No I am not. I am concentrating on "the one thing needful". Attentiveness to the fact that we can do nothing without divine assistance is the first rule, but when 'attentiveness' becomes a technique, then I think the point of attentiveness has been lost.

If we each and every one of us attended to the needs of our neighbour, without thought for ourselves, all would be well.


Again, I think this intellectualises the text, and misses the common sense point.

Don't get me wrong. I love that kind of stuff. Last night I was contemplating the inner meaning of Peter's release from prison by an angel — every word is dripping with symbolic import 'first ward', 'second ward', 'iron gate' ... but I never let myself forget the main point is ... the literal text.

I think Paul is saying what John says, in the Spirit we walk in the light, and out of it, we walk in darkness. And what is the Spirit? Love (1 John 4:8).

Read v11 of your own chosen text: "Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing."

A bit more of that, and we wouldn't need to intellectualise anything. It would be as plain as day.

As John says ... how can you tell a Christian? Because they love one another.

We attend to what we love, and we attend to ourselves too much. Any discipline that causes me to pay more attention to myself, and less to God, is suspect.

I am suggesting the danger is shaping Christianity to suit my intellectual disposition, rather than conforming my intellect to the essential message of Christ which is love and service to God and one's neighbour ... humility and the will of God.


I disagree. I think she lacked common sense. I think starving herself to death is evidence of that.


Sorry, but that strikes me as intellectual posturing.

Love sees but does not judge, and sees beyond the defilement. Purity might see it. Love can heal it.


We obviously have different values.

I think Mother Theresa's simple act of picking up a dying man, of treating him with dignity, outweights every intellectual essay ever written.

And look how much we carp and criticise, judge and bemoan, ridicule and complain ... the enormous amounts of criticism she garnered, the insistence that her motives were this ... or that ... she didn't do this ... she should have done that ...

... but I don't see her critics getting off their own backsides to help anyone.

I think we should attend to the fact that three score years and ten is a twinkling in the scheme of things, we should get over our existential angst, and get on with doing something instead of intellectualising at length and actually doing nothing.


Sorry Nick ... that does make me smile. Have you read Benedict XVI? Have you read his texts, in particular, that challenge the quasi-intellectual posturing of the West? His constant critique of Relativism? I think you lost sight of the church a long while ago ...

Anything that makes 'doing' Christianity more complex than it need be, is barking up the wrong tree, in my book.

Thomas

Hi Thomas

How could attention not be an intellectual excercise? We have no attention. Instead our attention is pulled through us by happenings in life. It takes real dedication to develop attention that IMO is vital not to become completely identified with external life.

You say that love is a function of will but we don't have will. Instead we respond to desire. This is why we end up so often hating what we love. Christrianity says we must love our enemies but in reality we don't even love our friends which just shows how far we are from being Christian.

Yes. God will stomach any offence, and never turn away ... but if you turn away from Him, then ...


But as we are , one day we turn to God and away on the next. None of this is worthy of eternal sin. Again, we have no idea of what sin against the Holy spirit means and it is probably better for us that we are ignorant.

No I am not. I am concentrating on "the one thing needful". Attentiveness to the fact that we can do nothing without divine assistance is the first rule, but when 'attentiveness' becomes a technique, then I think the point of attentiveness has been lost.

The point of attentiveness is to remain attentive. We see that we cannot be attentive. The question than is how to be attentive without thought of egositic gain and not worry about use of techniques.

If we each and every one of us attended to the needs of our neighbour, without thought for ourselves, all would be well.

You would be a slave lacking inner aspiration. Since when is a willing slave without aspiration a good Christian?

Again, I think this intellectualises the text, and misses the common sense point.

What is the common sense point? The essence of Christianity is personal re-birth into the New Man and access to the kingdom. The secondary purpose is salvation from being asleep in the body of christ.

Hitler and his wife loved each other. Are they good Christians?

I am suggesting the danger is shaping Christianity to suit my intellectual disposition, rather than conforming my intellect to the essential message of Christ which is love and service to God and one's neighbour ... humility and the will of God.

Again, the essential message of Christ is re-birth. Imagining that we love doesn't help.

We obviously have different values.

True, it is why I'm not Catholic.

I disagree. I think she lacked common sense. I think starving herself to death is evidence of that.

She didn't starve herself to death but If you think that is bad, Jesus volunteered to hang on the cross. Talk about a lack of common sense.

Anything that makes 'doing' Christianity more complex than it need be, is barking up the wrong tree, in my book.

True, but one must become able to "do" Christianity and the church no longer knows what this means or how to help the seeker. lots of bad karma associated with this ignorance.

Who in the modern church knows what this means and if not, what good is it other than as a secular temporary inspirational influence?

"People should not worry as much about what they do but rather about what they are. If they and their ways are good, then their deeds are radiant. If you are righteous, then what you do will also be righteous. We should not think that holiness is based on what we do but rather on what we are, for it is not our works which sanctify us but we who sanctify our works." Meister eckharet

 

[Quahom1]

"People should not worry as much about what they do but rather about what they are. If they and their ways are good, then their deeds are radiant. If you are righteous, then what you do will also be righteous. We should not think that holiness is based on what we do but rather on what we are, for it is not our works which sanctify us but we who sanctify our works." Meister eckharet

Wrong, people should worry about what the DO, not who they are. If we do right, then we are right. Even bad folk can do right, and become right.

What's worse than a bad man? A good man who does nothing to stop a bad man.

Coward's bane.

 

[Nick_A]

Wrong, people should worry about what the DO, not who they are. If we do right, then we are right. Even bad folk can do right, and become right.

What's worse than a bad man? A good man who does nothing to stop a bad man.

Coward's bane.

You are not Christian. Why try to criticize profound Christian depth without first trying to understand it?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nick — One question, is your entire understanding of Christianity based on the works of Simone Weil?

How could attention not be an intellectual excercise?

When it is love.

By love I mean 'agape' or 'caritas' — the delight in the existence of another for his or her own sake, whereas 'eros' is the delight in the existence of another for my sake (ie gratification).

We have no attention.

You might not.

I have seen otherwise.

Instead our attention is pulled through us by happenings in life. It takes real dedication to develop attention that IMO is vital not to become completely identified with external life.

With love, it comes (super)naturally.

You say that love is a function of will but we don't have will. Instead we respond to desire.

It's called Eros. The will directed by the appetites. Desire directed by the will is called agape. Developed by self-discipline.

Of course we have will, but we are weak-willed.

This is why we end up so often hating what we love.

Then we hate ourselves.

Christianity says we must love our enemies but in reality we don't even love our friends which just shows how far we are from being Christian.

Who is 'we'? You can speak for yourself, but not for everyone. I know a lot of Christians.

Christianity is not about being perfect, it's about making an effort.

But as we are, one day we turn to God and away on the next. None of this is worthy of eternal sin.

We hope ... not really our decision to make, though, is it? God could be the 'one wrong step and you're out' kinda guy, then where would we be?

We are called to forgive over and again, because God does. But that doesn't make less of the offence, just because God forgives it.

Again, we have no idea of what sin against the Holy spirit means and it is probably better for us that we are ignorant.

Then again, you seem to assume your ignorance is general. It might not be.

Sin against The Holy Spirit is the knowing and wilful rejection of God's love.

The point of attentiveness is to remain attentive. We see that we cannot be attentive. The question than is how to be attentive without thought of egositic gain and not worry about use of techniques.

You're very judgemental, aren't you? A little charity wouldn't go amiss.

Again and again you seem to judge everyone as yourself.

The answer is love.

You would be a slave lacking inner aspiration. Since when is a willing slave without aspiration a good Christian?

Nope, you're wrong. You'd be 'God intoxicated', like Eckhart.

What is the common sense point? The essence of Christianity is personal re-birth into the New Man and access to the kingdom. The secondary purpose is salvation from being asleep in the body of christ.

No. They're the objectives. The essence is love, which makes the objectives possible (and without love they are, intellectually, impossible).

Hitler and his wife loved each other. Are they good Christians?

Loving one person doesn't count. Jesus said that. Loving one's friends is a doddle. Loving one's enemies is the tough bit.

Again, the essential message of Christ is re-birth. Imagining that we love doesn't help.

Rebirth in the Spirit ... of Love ... I'm not sure you understand Christianity at all.

True, it is why I'm not Catholic.

Nor a Christian?

She didn't starve herself to death but If you think that is bad, Jesus volunteered to hang on the cross. Talk about a lack of common sense.

Not really. Her self-sacrifice achieved nothing. His achieved everything.

Thomas

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Thomas

Hi Nick — One question, is your entire understanding of Christianity based on the works of Simone Weil?

No. I've never discussed my primary sources. However I do know how much Simone reminds me of Meister Eckhart and I know of no one in modern times that have unified Christianity with Atheism as has Simone. Only real objective understanding can do such a thing.

By love I mean 'agape' or 'caritas' — the delight in the existence of another for his or her own sake, whereas 'eros' is the delight in the existence of another for my sake (ie gratification).

Does anything make Christian love unique IYO? Agape is not restricted to Christianity?

With love, it comes (super)naturally.

Is this your experience?

Who is 'we'? You can speak for yourself, but not for everyone. I know a lot of Christians.

I know very few Christians though many pre-Christians. My experience is that even men and women in marriage love and don't love each other. It is the same with friends accept they are not around as much.

Christianity is not about being perfect, it's about making an effort.

True but a Christian has mastered Christianity. A doctor has mastered medicine. a lawyer has mastered law. Students of law and medicine are not lawyers and doctors. A student of Christianity is not yet a Christian but a pre-Christian.

Matthew 12:

30"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

How do you differentiate between words against the son of man and speaking against the Holy spirit? You could reject god's love by rejecting Jesus. No. there is more here but I believe it requires a quality of understanding only a few have. Only a few could be worthy of either heaven or hell.

You're very judgemental, aren't you? A little charity wouldn't go amiss.

Again and again you seem to judge everyone as yourself.

The answer is love.

Do you really believe that when Jesus was reminding the disciples to stay awake he was asking them just to love one another?

Rebirth in the Spirit ... of Love ... I'm not sure you understand Christianity at all.

You do not want to admit that if we were capable of love beyond animal love, re-birth would be unnecessary.

Not really. Her self-sacrifice achieved nothing. His achieved everything.

You know nothing of Simone. First of all she didn't commit any self-sacrifice. The following account is what I've read as well.

Talk:Simone Weil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, how does this fit the end of her life. She was really sick - TB. They had collapsed the lung and it did not good at all. The dr. wanted to do it again. She refused [what today would be call the 'right to refuse treatment' - especially fruitless treatment. He got mad that she would not just acquiesce [like any patient, especially woman was expected to do] and so when she died he signed the death certificate that she died as a result of self starvation.
Here is where Pretrement comes in...documents the testimony of her nurse, some friends who would bring food in etc. Even goes to her confessor, 2nd doctor etc. Now, I have had some friends who have died and almost none of them wanted to each anything near the end...cancer, TB etc. there is a natural loss of appetite. So, I do not want to include all that in the encyclopedia article but want to put it out here for consideration.

We cannot know about those like Simone. they are out of our league. Is the following story true? I don't know. I do know that it is not impossible that a contact with higher consciousness sometimes occurs.
Encounter - 7/05/00: Simone Weil

Simone Weil's life and work has played a big part in your life. Could you perhaps, give us a brief anecdote to end with?

Well, here is an astonishing story. Though it has to do with Simone's after-life, am not making this up. I tell it because it has illustrative value.
A man had a dream... He dreamt that he entered into a building, took an elevator up to the top floor, where he found a door and pushed the buzzer. Upon being invited to enter, he walked across an apartment and reached a room where he saw a large table at which someone was seated, who looked as if she might be a scholar.
"You must know many languages", he told her.
"Where I am, we speak only one language", she answered.
At this point, the man woke up. The language in question he guessed to be that of love.
Some time later, after he discovered the writings of Simone Weil, he made by telephone an appointment with Mrs Selma Weil (Simone's mother), and proceeded to number 3, rue Auguste Comte in Paris. When he came to the building, he recognized it. And he entered the very elevator he used in his dream, reached the same floor, saw the same door, walked through the same apartment and came to the same room, where stood the same table. On the wall, he noticed a photo which was that of the very same person he had seen in his dream. The books of Simone Weil he had read had not been illustrated. Thus he saw there for the first time the features of the person he had met in his sleep.
Since this story was told to me by the man himself, a reverend and furthermore a psychiatrist, and "there are more things in heaven and earth" than our philosophy can think of, I did not doubt his tale. He is dead now, but I hesitate to mention his name. The gist of the matter however is that this story brings home a point which was made by Pascal: "C'est le coeur qui connait Dieu." "It is through the heart that we know God". And, may I add: "And everything else also."

Don't be so quick to condemn what you don't immediately understand. It is safer to say simply "I don't know" and leave the question open.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

No. I've never discussed my primary sources.

Quite.

However I do know how much Simone reminds me of Meister Eckhart ...

And yet he stands for the one thing she stands against.

Does anything make Christian love unique IYO?

Well that's a twofold answer:
1: The term agape was hardly used at all in contemporary Greek literature, and not at all in the way that it appears in Scripture. Although that does not make the usage unique, it does make it original.
2: The Holy Trinity.

Agape is not restricted to Christianity?

No, it's in the Greek lexicon. As a term referring to the Trinitarian circumincession, however, it transcends all other determinations.

Is this your experience?

Yes, and an experience which is shared by others.

I know very few Christians though many pre-Christians.

By which I assume you mean catechumens? Once Baptised, one is Christian. How well one lives it, is another matter.

Christianity is based on love, mercy, forgiveness ... we do not expect perfection of each other, nor do we introduce hierarchy, as in degrees of Christianity. All the angels in heaven, as it is said, delight in the return of each and every soul. That the journey has only started for that soul is of no matter, what matters is that it has begun.

My experience is that even men and women in marriage love and don't love each other. It is the same with friends accept they are not around as much.

That's a pity.

True but a Christian has mastered Christianity.

Utter rubbish. No Christian has ever said, or will ever say, they have mastered Christianity. To do so implies equality with God.

I don't know where you got that impression from, but it wasn't from a Christian. That's why I wondered where you get your ideas from — the one above is so far away from anything contained in doctrine or teaching.

A doctor has mastered medicine. a lawyer has mastered law. Students of law and medicine are not lawyers and doctors. A student of Christianity is not yet a Christian but a pre-Christian.

Again, I think you're introducing unreal intellectual technicalities. Find me a doctor or a lawyer who says he knows everything there is to know about medicine or the law.

How do you differentiate between words against the son of man and speaking against the Holy spirit?

It is only in the Spirit that we know the Son.

Many 'heard' the Son and said yes to what they heard ... but never saw the Son as the Son of God. So they said yes to the Son, no to the Spirit, and thus no to the reality of the Son. (John 6:68.)

You could reject god's love by rejecting Jesus.

Then you have reject the Spirit first, because the Spirit prepares the way for Jesus.

No. there is more here but I believe it requires a quality of understanding only a few have. Only a few could be worthy of either heaven or hell.

And yet the robber on the cross was worthy of paradise. So was the publican in the temple. So was the widow outside it.

Again, you're preaching a religion of elitism, the private reserve of the intellectual. That is not Christianity.

Do you really believe that when Jesus was reminding the disciples to stay awake he was asking them just to love one another?

No ... He was asking them to demonstrate their love for Him.

Sorry Nick, but if I want to understand something, I ask insiders, not outsiders. Outsiders, by virtue of being outside, don't know, they only assume they know. If they knew, they'd be inside, wouldn't they?

If you mean do I hear no criticism of the Church, then that is naive. I have read the comments of insiders — Yves Congar OP for example — who's criticisms are far more pointed, accurate, and valid. But the shortcomings of his fellow men did not blind him to the realities of Christ.

Don't be so quick to condemn what you don't immediately understand. It is safer to say simply "I don't know" and leave the question open.

Yet you choose to freely criticise the Church. You may well understand Weil, but I am saying neither she nor you understands the Church.

Thomas

 

[mee]

what is the holy spirit for you ?

Holy spirit has been working in behalf of true Christians in our day.

This became evident to a small group of Bible students in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., in the latter half of the 19th century. These earnest students of the Bible yearned to know "the truth."—John 8:32; 16:13.

One member of this group, Charles Taze Russell, said regarding his quest for Scriptural truth: "I prayed . . . that I might be enabled to rid my heart and mind of any prejudice that might stand in the way and be led of his spirit into the proper understanding." God blessed this humble prayer. ​

As Russell and his associates diligently searched the Scriptures, a number of things became clear. "We found that for centuries," explained Russell, "various sects and parties had split up the Bible doctrines amongst them, blending them with more or less of human speculation and error." This resulted in what he called "the misplacement of the truth." Indeed, Scriptural truths were buried under a collection of pagan teachings that had infiltrated Christendom over the centuries. ​

But Russell was determined to know and declare the truth.​

The modern-day organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses has remained sensitive to the leadings of God’s holy spirit for well over a century now.

As Jehovah’s spirit progressively enlightens their spiritual vision, the Witnesses willingly make the needed adjustments to conform to updated understanding.Proverbs 4:18.


yes the holy spirit is a force in action

As you can imagine, though, such exposing of false teachings angered the clergy of Christendom.

Eager to hold on to their influential positions, many Catholic and Protestant clergymen organized campaigns aimed at discrediting Russell.


But he and his associates did not give up.

Confidently, they looked to God’s spirit for guidance. "Our Lord’s assurance," said Russell, "is that . . . the holy spirit of the Father, sent on account of and at the instance of Jesus our Redeemer, Mediator and Head, will be our instructor."

And instruct it did!

These sincere Bible Students continued to take in the pure waters of truth from the Bible and proclaim them worldwide.—Revelation 22:17.


the bible itself is what it is all about , with no manmade doctrines in sight

THATS THE WAY TO DO IT truth is what it is all about , and Jehovah blesses those after truth

 

[Quahom1]

You are not Christian. Why try to criticize profound Christian depth without first trying to understand it?

You are quite unique in your perspective on this interfaith forum, in considering me, not to be a Christian.

As for me and mine, we will follow the Lord.

 

[Thomas]

Nice propaganda job, Mee ...

The modern-day organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses has remained sensitive to the leadings of God’s holy spirit for well over a century now.

That's one way of looking at it.

The other way is to trace Rutherford's rise through the ranks, to take over the society and change it's course considerably. Centralised authority, sole control of the editorial content of The WatchTower, a very suspect posthumous edition of Russell's work, the getting rid of those who wished to see Russell's ideas continued ...

Looked like a Putsch to me.

As you can imagine, though, such exposing of false teachings angered the clergy of Christendom.
Or rather, the false teaching and misunderstandings that led people into error angered the clergy.

"Our Lord’s assurance," said Russell, "is that . . . the holy spirit of the Father, sent on account of and at the instance of Jesus our Redeemer, Mediator and Head, will be our instructor."

Sadly, many misguided souls convince themselves that the voice they hear is God's, and not simply the voice of their own desires ...

These sincere Bible Students continued to take in the pure waters of truth from the Bible and proclaim them worldwide.—Revelation 22:17.

Actually, Rutherford got rid of them. The society lost 75% of its membership as Rutherford took control.

Rutheford was a door-to-door encyclopaedia salesman ... and like all salesmen, he saw a golden selling opportunity, and you guys have been selling door-to-door ever since.

The very nature of the Jehovah's Witnesses is based on Rutherford's experience as a salesman. Definitely a man-made doctrine!

Thomas