what is the holy spirit for you ?

GlorytoGod

There is a River
Messages
943
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The holy spirit what does it mean for you ?

I'm not talking to much doctrine here but more of actual personal experience, like being slain in the spirit, holy laughter, drunk on the new wine etc :)
 
How strange, GlorytoGod, that your new topic comes just after I resisted a prompting to start a thread, titled with a question that I saw over the weekend, (asked in Acts, I think):

"Have you received the Holy Spirit after you were saved?"

To me, this strange synchronicity signifies the operation of the Spirit of Holiness.

Respectfully,

Learner
 
yeah thats interesting, maybe we are both in touch with the same God :)
 
My sense of the Holy spirit is consistent with the way it has been described -- i.e., as (1) a source of various gifts, (2) a source of strength, (3) a source of specific truth, and (4) as a purifying agent.

St John of the Cross mentions the Holy Spirit in his Dark Night of the Soul.
"(I)nasmuch as the soul is now purged from the affections and desires of sense, it obtains liberty of spirit, whereby in ever greater degree it gains the twelve fruits of the Holy Spirit."
Elsewhere St John refers to the "holy fear which preserves and increases the virtues" and which may be considered "the key and the custodian of all the virtues."

In addition, John mentions a transformation of one's personal will, which loses is "natural strength" and gains new "strength and purity from the Holy Spirit" so that the will "which is now near to God, acts not after a human manner."
 
Interesting posts.

Some things I used to take as supernatural I now think were just hype, but there are some things that happened that no one else could cause. Once I was praying on my knees and I felt someone touch my shoulder, but I looked up and no one was there. Once I went up front at a church to get prayed for for healing, but it didn't go as expected. The associate minister pressed and tried to make me sway and fall down, so I returned, disappointed, to my seat. I chose to praise God, ignoring what happened and my lower vertebrae which had been out for years popped back where it was supposed to be. Once I was lying on my face and praised the Majesty, and I heard a thought that wasn't my own about an opportunity that would come in a couple of days. I've seen liars sway crowds and pretend to lengthen legs and felt strange powers come out of strong minded people. I've sensed a friend was about to call on the phone and also that someone I knew was in a certain building or direction. I've never seen a man born blind made to see, and I've never seen someone born crippled walk or a deaf born person hear.
 
"Through the spirit we rise to the Son, through the Son to the Father"
St Irenaeus of Lyon. Against the Heretics V xxxvi, 2.

"And for this reason the baptism of our regeneration proceeds through these three points: God the Father bestowing on us regeneration through His Son by the Holy Spirit. For as many as carry (in them) the Spirit of God are led to the Word, that is to the Son; and the Son brings them to the Father; and the Father causes them to possess incorruption."

Thomas
 
"Through the spirit we rise to the Son, through the Son to the Father"
St Irenaeus of Lyon. Against the Heretics V xxxvi, 2.

"And for this reason the baptism of our regeneration proceeds through these three points: God the Father bestowing on us regeneration through His Son by the Holy Spirit. For as many as carry (in them) the Spirit of God are led to the Word, that is to the Son; and the Son brings them to the Father; and the Father causes them to possess incorruption."

Thomas

Thomas, do you feel at all uncomfortable about discussing the Holy Spirit in a context that features posts like:

Right now its a toss up between Jack Daniels and a Pina Colada :)

tao

Do you ever feel as though you are psychologically losing something?
 
The holy spirit what does it mean for you ?

I'm not talking to much doctrine here but more of actual personal experience, like being slain in the spirit, holy laughter, drunk on the new wine etc :)
none of the above. Quiet guide. Calm when calm isn't the order of the day, or the moment. Peace when everything is crazy. Fishing partner, when I'm alone on the river.
 
Thomas, do you feel at all uncomfortable about discussing the Holy Spirit in a context that features posts like (the one by Tao).

Do you ever feel as though you are psychologically losing something?

Dear NickA,

An interesting question you pose to Thomas.

I am not sure what you mean with "psycologically losing something?"

What came to my mind was that one who has the Holy Spirit really has nothing to lose, for, since it was given to men as "the promise of the Father," those who have received it await no higher fulfillment beyond being filled with IT, that is, the Spirit of Holiness, of Love and Truth.

The truth is, a discussion about the Holy Spirit does not take place in the context of a forum tread, but any forum discussion (about anything) takes place in the "context" of the Spirit of Holiness, for "in Him we live and act and are."

In Divine Light all men have light, and all men are shown up for what they are spiritually, or, er, uhm...psychologically, yes?

Respectfully,

Learner
 
what is the holy spirit for you ?
or even what is the holy spirit according to the bible :) after all the bible is the place that we get knowledge about what the holyspirit is , And it sure is a force in motion.



The Fruitage of the Spirit

An important activity of holy spirit is in helping us to develop Christian personalities.






True, because of imperfection we cannot avoid sinning. (Romans 7:21-23)









But when we sincerely repent, Jehovah forgives us on the basis of Christ’s sacrifice. (Matthew 12:31, 32; Romans 7:24, 25; 1 John 2:1, 2)




Moreover, Jehovah expects us to struggle against our tendency to sin, and the holy spirit helps us to do this. "Keep walking by spirit," said Paul, "and you will carry out no fleshly desire at all." (Galatians 5:16)




Paul went on to show that the spirit can produce the finest of qualities in us. He wrote: "The fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control."—Galatians 5:22, 23.:)



How does the spirit make possible such fruitage in a Christian?

It does not happen automatically just because we are dedicated and baptized Christians.


We have to work at it.

But if we associate with other Christians who display these qualities, if we pray to God for his spirit to help us develop specific qualities, if we avoid bad associations and study the Bible for counsel and good examples, then the fruitage of the spirit will grow in us.—Proverbs 13:20; 1 Corinthians 15:33; Galatians 5:24-26; Hebrews 10:24, 25.



Christians recognize that the Holy Scriptures were written under the influence of holy spirit.

so, they delve into them for spirit-inspired wisdom, as did Jehovah’s pre-Christian witnesses. (Proverbs 2:1-9)

They read them, meditate on them, and let them guide their lives. (Psalm 1:1-3; 2 Timothy 3:16)

They are then helped by the spirit to ‘search into the deep things of God.’ (1 Corinthians 2:10, 13; 3:19)

Guiding God’s servants in this way is an important activity of God’s spirit for our time.:)

 
when I was first born again it was like I could feel the spirit living in me, and then sometimes it would be like I felt like I was Jesus or Jesus was in me. On Sunday in worship we were singing a song and everytime I said Jesus it felt like it was Jesus in me singing his name.
 
Dear NickA,

An interesting question you pose to Thomas.

I am not sure what you mean with "psycologically losing something?"

What came to my mind was that one who has the Holy Spirit really has nothing to lose, for, since it was given to men as "the promise of the Father," those who have received it await no higher fulfillment beyond being filled with IT, that is, the Spirit of Holiness, of Love and Truth.

The truth is, a discussion about the Holy Spirit does not take place in the context of a forum tread, but any forum discussion (about anything) takes place in the "context" of the Spirit of Holiness, for "in Him we live and act and are."

In Divine Light all men have light, and all men are shown up for what they are spiritually, or, er, uhm...psychologically, yes?

Respectfully,

Learner

No. We confuse the results of emotional energy with the Spirit. Discussing these things without the proper mindset just increases the inner deception and we lose from it.. John didn't say to test the spirits for nothing and only a few try to impartially understand what he means rather than to justify it emotionally..
 
Hi Nick —

Thomas, do you feel at all uncomfortable about discussing the Holy Spirit in a context that features posts like...
It is something I have considered often.

There is a saying, "Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine" (Matthew 7:6). More than once I have wondered, is that what I am doing here? What is the point?

It really doesn't matter what I believe ... what matters is why I believe what I believe.

By the responses received, rarely, if ever, is anyone interested in why Catholicism says what it says, why it believes in what it does, or how that position was arrived at. At best I can hope for a reasoned contrary argument — as indeed we have enjoyed.

Failing that, then generally the response is to pose a personal opinion against 2,000 years of theological insight and philosophical development. Such an argument is invalid in any meaningful scientific inquiry or discussion, so I fail to see why it should be accepted as theologically valid.

And on occasion, the voice of the anti-Catholic or anti-religious agenda as it manifests in various quarters. Propagandist, invariably founded on ignorance and/or error, if not actual antagonism.

So why bother? It seems markedly apparent, by their absence, that those of a traditional disposition do not post here, indeed are not made to feel welcome here. IO is primarily for the self-informed, it is the platform of opinion, not of orthodoxy.

So why do I stay?

Training. As a theologian-in-formation I know that my vocation will take me to one of two places: the cloister or the classroom.

If the latter, I'll be tucked away in some monastic library, poring over old texts ... bringing to light (I hope) a lost jewel of antiquity. If the former, I'll be in discussion with the world, as it were, and here is as good a place as any to test one's methods.

And, I have to admit, a certain tendency or disposition towards the robust, if not the combative (add some Gaelic genes into the mix). I don't believe in 'gentle Jesus meek and mild', anymore than I believe in the Jesus of 'anything goes' or the 'Jesus of my own invention'.

And maybe ... who knows ... there might just open the smallest chink, through which the light begins to shine (ever the optimist).

Do you ever feel as though you are psychologically losing something?
Not at all. Far more testing, psychologically, is theology itself.

I would go so far as to say, from what little I know, that was Weil's problem. She mistook her emotional response as something spiritual. The lesson of 'get over yourself, and get on with it', seems applicable, and is generally a good test of the spirit ... or as my old boss used to say, 'less trap, more action'.

What makes theology tough is not what you come to understand about the divine nature, but what you come to understand about human nature. What makes it tougher is accepting that God accepts that, indeed He accounts for it, and that we should accept that, too.

There is a key there, to the simplicity of the saint.

Thomas
 
What makes theology tough is not what you come to understand about the divine nature, but what you come to understand about human nature. What makes it tougher is accepting that God accepts that, indeed He accounts for it, and that we should accept that, too.

There is a key there, to the simplicity of the saint.

Only you could have said this, sir, and I find it beautiful.

Thanks, Thomas.

Learner
 
Hi Nick —


It is something I have considered often.

There is a saying, "Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine" (Matthew 7:6). More than once I have wondered, is that what I am doing here? What is the point?

It really doesn't matter what I believe ... what matters is why I believe what I believe.

By the responses received, rarely, if ever, is anyone interested in why Catholicism says what it says, why it believes in what it does, or how that position was arrived at. At best I can hope for a reasoned contrary argument — as indeed we have enjoyed.

Failing that, then generally the response is to pose a personal opinion against 2,000 years of theological insight and philosophical development. Such an argument is invalid in any meaningful scientific inquiry or discussion, so I fail to see why it should be accepted as theologically valid.

And on occasion, the voice of the anti-Catholic or anti-religious agenda as it manifests in various quarters. Propagandist, invariably founded on ignorance and/or error, if not actual antagonism.

So why bother? It seems markedly apparent, by their absence, that those of a traditional disposition do not post here, indeed are not made to feel welcome here. IO is primarily for the self-informed, it is the platform of opinion, not of orthodoxy.

So why do I stay?

Training. As a theologian-in-formation I know that my vocation will take me to one of two places: the cloister or the classroom.

If the latter, I'll be tucked away in some monastic library, poring over old texts ... bringing to light (I hope) a lost jewel of antiquity. If the former, I'll be in discussion with the world, as it were, and here is as good a place as any to test one's methods.

And, I have to admit, a certain tendency or disposition towards the robust, if not the combative (add some Gaelic genes into the mix). I don't believe in 'gentle Jesus meek and mild', anymore than I believe in the Jesus of 'anything goes' or the 'Jesus of my own invention'.

And maybe ... who knows ... there might just open the smallest chink, through which the light begins to shine (ever the optimist).


Not at all. Far more testing, psychologically, is theology itself.

I would go so far as to say, from what little I know, that was Weil's problem. She mistook her emotional response as something spiritual. The lesson of 'get over yourself, and get on with it', seems applicable, and is generally a good test of the spirit ... or as my old boss used to say, 'less trap, more action'.

What makes theology tough is not what you come to understand about the divine nature, but what you come to understand about human nature. What makes it tougher is accepting that God accepts that, indeed He accounts for it, and that we should accept that, too.

There is a key there, to the simplicity of the saint.

Thomas

Hi Thomas

I must disagree on certain things. As you know I believe Jesus spoke in parables as a way of protecting people. You know the dangers of sinning against the Holy spirit. We are lucky since to do that requires a certain quality of understanding that we don't have but are capable of. So accept for a small minority having acquired some objective knowledge, we cannot sin against the Holy Spirit.

Consider St. Simeon and the three methods of prayer:

"The Three Methods of Prayer" -- St. Simeon the New Theologian

If you consider how many people use the first method of prayer it is obvious why there is so much religious sickness. Something is lost in the process because we get in our own way. Many think prayer is prayer but the astute reader will see it is not so. They become aware of how much self deception can play a part in prayer and in ones conception of Christianity.

Simone Weil experientially knew this which is why she is known as the saint who didn't pray. she wrote:

........................During all this time of spiritual progress I had never prayed. I was afraid of the power of suggestion that is in prayer -- the very power for which Pascal recommends it. Pascal's method seems to me one of the worst for attaining faith.

Contact with you was not able to persuade me to pray. On the contrary I thought the danger was all the greater, since I also had to beware of the power of suggestion in my friendship with you. At the same time I found it very difficult not to pray and not to tell you so. Moreover I knew I could not tell you without completely misleading you about myself. At that time I should not have been able to make you understand.

Until last September I had never once prayed in all my life, at least not in the literal sense of the word. I had never said any words to God, either out loud or mentally. I had never pronounced a liturgical prayer. I had occasionally recited the Salve Regina, but only as a beautiful poem.

Last summer, doing Greek with T-, I went through the Our Father word for word in Greek. We promised each other to learn it by heart. I do not think he ever did so, but some weeks later, as I was turning over the pages of the Gospel, I said to myself that since I had promised to do this thing and it was good, I ought to do it. I did it. The infinite sweetness of this Greek text so took hold of me that for several days I could not stop myself from saying it over all the time. A week afterward I began the vine harvest I recited the Our Father in Greek every day before work, and I repeated it very often in the vineyard.

Since that time I have made a practice of saying it through once each morning with absolute attention. If during the recitation my attention wanders or goes to sleep, in the minutest degree, I begin again until I have once succeeded in going through it with absolutely pure attention. Sometimes it comes about that I say it again out of sheer pleasure, but I only do it if I really feel the impulse.

The effect of this practice is extraordinary and surprises me every time, for, although I experience it each day, it exceeds my expectation at each repetition.

At times the very first words tear my thoughts from my body and transport it to a place outside space where there is neither perspective nor point of view. The infinity of the ordinary expanses of perception is replaced by an infinity to the second or sometimes the third degree. At the same time, filling every part of this infinity of infinity, there is silence, a silence which is not an absence of sound but which is the object of a positive sensation, more positive than that of sound. Noises, if there are any, only reach me after crossing this silence.

Sometimes, also, during this recitation or at other moments, Christ is present with me in person, but his presence is infinitely more real, more moving, more clear than on that first occasion when he took possession of me.

I should never have been able to take it upon myself to tell you all this had it not been for the fact that I am going away. And as I am going more or less with the idea of probable death, I do not believe that I have the right to keep it to myself. For after all, the whole of this matter is not a question concerning me myself. It concerns God. I am really nothing in it all. If one could imagine any possibility of error in God, I should think that it had all happened to me by mistake. But perhaps God likes to use castaway objects, waste, rejects. After all, should the bread of the host be moldy, it would become the Body of Christ just the same after the priest had consecrated it. Only it cannot refuse, while we can disobey. It sometimes seems to me that when I am treated in so merciful a way, every sin on my part must be a mortal sin. And I am constantly committing them....

[SIZE=-2]excerpted from WAITING FOR GOD by Simone Weil - Harper & Row, New York, 1951, translated by Emma Craufurd (title is also translated as "Waiting ON God")[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-2]I maintain that a certain quality of inner understanding is corrupted and lost when certain concepts are taken lightly. Have you ever wondered why one shouldn't take the name of the lord thy God in vain? Many think it is offensive to God. Others through ancient psychology know it is because we lose something in ourselves[/SIZE]
 
Hi Nick —

I must disagree on certain things ... So accept for a small minority having acquired some objective knowledge, we cannot sin against the Holy Spirit.
Nick — I may have completely the wrong end of the stick, but it seems to me you continually render Christianity as an intellectual exercise, that one needs a profound intellect to actually comprehend and 'do' what Christianity is. I disagree, I think Scripture disagrees, I think this is a 'gnostic tendency' towards complexity and elitism.

God is simple.
Christ came to save sinners, not rally an elite.
Sinning against the Holy Spirit is refusing the offer of Salvation.

We allow a number of psychological reasons why someone might refuse the Word (abuses at the hands of the clergy, for example), but these are secondary and exceptions to the principle as such.

Any man can be saved, except the man who refuses to be saved. I consider you reference to St. Simeon as a warning to those who would intellectualise prayer — a warning against pride.

You should read St Therese on 'the interior mansion' ... she actually offers one example from experience, of a nun who could not keep quiet during prayer. The nun, a daughter of poor farming stock, was 'relegated' to the kitchens, so as not to interfere with the contemplations of the daughters of the nobility who occupied the higher offices in the order.

It was St Theresa who realised the lowly nun was actually undergoing a profound mystical experience and was an exemplar of ejaculatory prayer.

Simone Weil experientially knew this which is why she is known as the saint who didn't pray.

All Scripture says pray, always and often. If man prayed more, and exercised his options less, we'd all be a lot better off. Simone chose not to. I'm sorry, but it's just another example, to me, of putting herself in the picture, and not seeing the reality of what is.

Seems to me Simone was a genius who lacked plain common sense.

+++

I maintain that a certain quality of inner understanding is corrupted and lost when certain concepts are taken lightly.
And I maintain that most people wouldn't have a clue of what you're talking about. Prayer is a dialogue of the heart, not the head. It's when it becomes the latter that it becomes meaningless. That's why Simone could not pray ... too much head, not enough heart ...

Thomas
 
Hi Nick —


Nick — I may have completely the wrong end of the stick, but it seems to me you continually render Christianity as an intellectual exercise, that one needs a profound intellect to actually comprehend and 'do' what Christianity is. I disagree, I think Scripture disagrees, I think this is a 'gnostic tendency' towards complexity and elitism.

God is simple.
Christ came to save sinners, not rally an elite.
Sinning against the Holy Spirit is refusing the offer of Salvation.

We allow a number of psychological reasons why someone might refuse the Word (abuses at the hands of the clergy, for example), but these are secondary and exceptions to the principle as such.

Any man can be saved, except the man who refuses to be saved. I consider you reference to St. Simeon as a warning to those who would intellectualise prayer — a warning against pride.

You should read St Therese on 'the interior mansion' ... she actually offers one example from experience, of a nun who could not keep quiet during prayer. The nun, a daughter of poor farming stock, was 'relegated' to the kitchens, so as not to interfere with the contemplations of the daughters of the nobility who occupied the higher offices in the order.

It was St Theresa who realised the lowly nun was actually undergoing a profound mystical experience and was an exemplar of ejaculatory prayer.



All Scripture says pray, always and often. If man prayed more, and exercised his options less, we'd all be a lot better off. Simone chose not to. I'm sorry, but it's just another example, to me, of putting herself in the picture, and not seeing the reality of what is.

Seems to me Simone was a genius who lacked plain common sense.

+++


And I maintain that most people wouldn't have a clue of what you're talking about. Prayer is a dialogue of the heart, not the head. It's when it becomes the latter that it becomes meaningless. That's why Simone could not pray ... too much head, not enough heart ...

Thomas

Yes Christianity for me is intellectual. 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.


Mark 3

28I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

Do you really think that this just means "Sinning against the Holy Spirit is refusing the offer of Salvation." Does this mean that all that walk around condemning Christianity and the Holy spirit are guilty of eternal sin. For me it means quite a bit more.

Any man can be saved, except the man who refuses to be saved. I consider you reference to St. Simeon as a warning to those who would intellectualise prayer — a warning against pride.

To the contrary, it means as described:

THE THREE METHODS OF PRAYER

BEGIN -- There are three methods of prayer and attentiveness, by means of which the soul is either uplifted or cast down. Whoever employs these methods at the right time is uplifted, but whoever employs them foolishly and at the wrong time is cast down. Vigilance and prayer should be as closely linked together as the body to the soul, for the one cannot stand without the other. Vigilance first goes on ahead like a scout and engages sin in combat. Prayer then follows afterwards, and instantly destroys and exterminates all the evil thoughts with which vigilance has already been battling, for attentiveness alone cannot exterminate them. This, then, is the gate of life and death. If by means of vigilance we keep prayer pure, we make progress; but if we leave prayer unguarded and permit it to be defiled, our efforts are null and void.

Since, then, as we said, there are three methods of attentiveness and prayer, we should explain the distinctive features of each, so that he who aspires to attain life and wishes to set to work may with firm assurance select what suits him best; otherwise through ignorance he may choose what is worse and forfeit what is better.

All Scripture says pray, always and often. If man prayed more, and exercised his options less, we'd all be a lot better off. Simone chose not to. I'm sorry, but it's just another example, to me, of putting herself in the picture, and not seeing the reality of what is.

You are ignoring the purpose and value of attentiveness.

Mark 14:

37Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Simon," he said to Peter, "are you asleep? Could you not keep watch for one hour? 38Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."

39Once more he went away and prayed the same thing. 40When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. They did not know what to say to him. 41Returning the third time, he said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!"


1 Thessalonians 5
4But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. 5You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness. 6So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be alert and self-controlled. 7For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, get drunk at night. 8But since we belong to the day, let us be self-controlled, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet. 9For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. 10He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him. 11Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.
Paul is describing an intellectual function that begins to discriminate between night and day: sleep and awakening. Jesus says it is important and Paul says it is important yet the modern church is oblivious of it and just advises praying "always and often" without any understanding of what attentiveness or watchfulness means.

Seems to me Simone was a genius who lacked plain common sense.

It is the opposite. Simone acquired common sense through a quality of attention few are capable of. It is why she never became a conditioned representative of the "Great Beast." It is only through the results of common sense that she could see the Beast for what it is.

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." Simone Weil

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

The church has become oblivious of the nature and importance of the intellect. I sensed it early in life which is why I insisted on leaving it at an early age. Only later in life was I able to learn the importance of the intellect for Christianity and how the word has become so misleading that it defies definition. Here is a standard definition if intellect:

the 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.

There is no distinction between the conscious and reactive mind so it can have no meaning in relation to Christianity and the "watchful" mind.


 
Back
Top