The Holy Spirit

Originally posted by Palynka
The hue of the long-wave end of the visible spectrum with a wavelength range of around 630-760 nanometers.

A person born blind would know what red is from hearing or reading
that, or would they know simply that you have a number range with
the words wavelenght and nanometers attached to it? Wouldn't they
just know you have something that you have attached some numbers
too, we can attach number to a total in a super market checkout lane
too. Exactly how does that give one born blind understanding of that
color?
Kelly

Originally posted by Palynka
Don't be ludicrous, I answered your questions without such strawmen.

What makes "man" is our species, nothing more. Even you must agree with the equivalence of "man" with his biological species.

Is a "dead man" a "man" to you? Why don't you provide your viewpoint instead of playing judge without substance?

I merely reply to your response.
You have still failed to respond to the conciousness of man.
Man has the ability to reason.
In reasoning, man has the choice to "live life to the fullest" or not.
Do you believe that animals have the same choice?
If man is no more than massive electrical impulses as an animal, then how come we have the ability to reason and debate?
I stand to reason that there is more to man than meets the eye.
I stand to reason that man has a soul and a spirit - Two aspects of man that cannot be seen yet they exist.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Pointy... hope you understand. Can you?

P-


[b]Edit!

Did you read my post? Did you ever consider the people you hurt by saying they are wrong about God and that you are right?

I'm not saying you are wrong, you might get in. That is not for me to decide... but you are throwing away everyone's beliefs when you say only you are right. ...[text shortened]... in a position to know who makes it 'up' and who does not. That's what I find bothersome.

[/b]

*Tap tap tap....

Is this thing on?

P-

Originally posted by KellyJay
A person born blind would know what red is from hearing or reading
that, or would they know simply that you have a number range with
the words wavelenght and nanometers attached to it? Wouldn't they
just know you have something that you have attached some numbers
too, we can attach number to a total in a super market checkout lane
too. Exactly how does that give one born blind understanding of that
color?
Kelly

I'd say he just made an utter fool of you, but sadly you do that on your own. Have fun with your invisible "friend"; maybe he can hang out with the monster in your closet.

Originally posted by KellyJay
A person born blind would know what red is from hearing or reading
that, or would they know simply that you have a number range with
the words wavelenght and nanometers attached to it? Wouldn't they
just know you have something that you have attached some numbers
too, we can attach number to a total in a super market checkout lane
too. Exactly how does that give one born blind understanding of that
color?
Kelly

Yes, he would know what it is, even if he has never "seen" it. To see is merely an interface and so are the other senses.

If he studies it, he would probably know more about the colour red than most people that see it. I think you would agree that things are much more than what our senses reveal of them.

The real step is understanding that this does not need spirituality for an explanation, but a mere admission that our senses are limited will suffice.

Originally posted by krisvictor
I merely reply to your response.
You have still failed to respond to the conciousness of man.
Man has the ability to reason.
In reasoning, man has the choice to "live life to the fullest" or not.
Do you believe that animals have the same choice?
If man is no more than massive electrical impulses as an animal, then how come we have the ability to re ...[text shortened]... reason that man has a soul and a spirit - Two aspects of man that cannot be seen yet they exist.

How do you know that animals can't reason? There's some gorillas who can speak sign language, including abstract concepts. Dolphins might be as intelligent as Man; research continues. We didn't know many things about the physical world a hundred years ago that we know now; what will happen when it is proven that animals DO reason? Will the Holy Spirit be visiting them, too?

Originally posted by no1marauder
How do you know that animals can't reason? There's some gorillas who can speak sign language, including abstract concepts. Dolphins might be as intelligent as Man; research continues. We didn't know many things about the physical world a hundred years ago that we know now; what will happen when it is proven that animals DO reason? Will the Holy Spirit be visiting them, too?

Jesus loves my cat. Regardless of if cats made it into the Bible.

Don't take that away from me!

P-

Originally posted by krisvictor
I merely reply to your response.
You have still failed to respond to the conciousness of man.
Man has the ability to reason.
In reasoning, man has the choice to "live life to the fullest" or not.
Do you believe that animals have th ...[text shortened]... a spirit - Two aspects of man that cannot be seen yet they exist.

You ask questions for which you don't provide opinions. I feel mildly insulted as I sense this as patronizing and I appreciate it if you provided your opinions as well.

The consciousness of man is the product of brain functions. A frontal lobotomy affects consciousness, is the thing you call "consciousness" within the physical brain? If not, why does it change?

Do you believe that animals have the same choice?
No, I'm a Humanist (in my purely personal perspective), so I put Man in another level of responsibility regarding other animals. If another conscious species were to appear (alien or whatever) I would agree to a change in denomination, but the standard one is Humanist and I'll stick with it for now for simplification purposes.

If man is no more than massive electrical impulses as an animal, then how come we have the ability to reason and debate?
I never said these reactions were equivalent between species. Strawman.

I stand to reason that there is more to man than meets the eye.
I stand to reason that man has a soul and a spirit - Two aspects of man that cannot be seen yet they exist.
You need to define "more than meets the eye". Are you saying it is not observable? (note that observable here is more than "sight" )
Would you accept that gravity does not necessarily need a spiritual explanation?

Edit: I hate it when " ) together become this smiley "😉. It happens often to me...Edited out.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
This is the mind-boggling part. The idea that the universe is breathing. That this cosmic breath has communicative power.

Can you shed any light on the relationship between Ruach & the HGA?

Any stories from experience (yours, others'😉 would be welcome too.

Responding to a post from 4 pages back, but what the heck...

The Holy Guardian Angel (HGA) is sometimes called the "augoeides", which means "higher genius" in Greek, another term for "higher self", or what the Hindus call "atman". Some schools see this "higher genius" as the bridge between God and self, others see it as a direction manifestion of God himself. Hindu teachings end with the idea of "atman = brahman (God)", meaning the self eventually dissolves into God when the time is right.

The Hebrew word "ruach" has several definitions but I'm not a kabbalist and neither am I Jewish so I'd suggest consulting source texts for that one. Generally speaking though it is connected to the emotional part of the soul, and to the idea of "divine wind" which is very similar to Holy Spirit.

As for experiences, one thing interesting to look at are the experiences of practitioners of Kundalini yoga and "born again" Christians undergoing "holy spirit" movements (if they do). Both undergo remarkably similar effects once the cultural overlay is filtered out...

Originally posted by Palynka
Yes, he would know what it is, even if he has never "seen" it. To see is merely an interface and so are the other senses.

If he studies it, he would probably know more about the colour red than most people that see it. I think you woul ...[text shortened]... , but a mere admission that our senses are limited will suffice.

How would he know what it is from those numbers again?

To see requires an interface, correct! Without it you will not grasp what
red is, it will be like hearing a set of numbers, nothing more.

There are other senses correct, but those senses do not cross
over another. You cannot say bright is like hot for someone who
has the sense of feeling but no sight, they understand hot but that
is as far as it goes. You mentioned "hue of the long-wave end of
the visible spectrum..." I guess I should have zeroed in on this
part of your statement so you understand where you’re failing, exactly
how again would a person born blind know what a "hue" was, or know
what "visible" is, let alone "visible spectrum?" Those are not terms
they can relate too, they have never seen anything before.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
How would he know what it is from those numbers again?

To see requires an interface, correct! Without it you will not grasp what
red is, it will be like hearing a set of numbers, nothing more.

There are other senses correct, but tho ...[text shortened]... hey can relate too, they have never seen anything before.
Kelly

How would he know what it is from those numbers again?
What numbers? Nanometers? First you explain one meter and then explain that it is one billionth of a meter. Easy.


To see requires an interface, correct!
This is not what I've said. I said that sight IS an interface between brain and objects. You will not grasp what it is by sight alone, you'll have a more correct idea of what red is by reading something about the colour spectrum. Visual recognition of something is just one of many facets of an object.

There are other senses correct, but those senses do not cross
over another.
Of course not, that's why reducing an explanation of something to its phenomena is erroneous. Interpretation of the phenomena is the key to understanding. Senses have no truth values, only interpretations of senses do.

how again would a person born blind know what a "hue" was, or know
what "visible" is, let alone "visible spectrum?"
Are you saying it's impossible to explain how the eye works? Start from there. What does the fact of seeing tell you about the visible spectrum? Can you truly understand it better merely because you see something? I would even expect it would be easier for a blind person to understand that part of the spectrum is not sensed by the organ called eye.

Now that I've addressed your questions, can you answer me if you can understand what the invisible part of the spectrum is? By your line of argumentation it wouldn't be possible to explain what it is!

Originally posted by KellyJay
How would he know what it is from those numbers again?

To see requires an interface, correct! Without it you will not grasp what
red is, it will be like hearing a set of numbers, nothing more.

There are other senses correct, but those senses do not cross
over another. You cannot say bright is like hot for someone who
has the sense of feeling but no ...[text shortened]... trum?" Those are not terms
they can relate too, they have never seen anything before.
Kelly

Come on, you must have something for me... or is there something I said you can't refute?

P-

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Come on, you must have something for me... or is there something I said you can't refute?

P-

Sorry, you don't get to see the Holy Spirit or learn the Secret Handshake till you join the Club.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sorry, you don't get to see the Holy Spirit or learn the Secret Handshake till you join the Club.

Next comes 'The Jesus Reset' where another thread is started to talk about the same old crap you just flushed.

P-

Originally posted by Palynka
[b]How would he know what it is from those numbers again?
What numbers? Nanometers? First you explain one meter and then explain that it is one billionth of a meter. Easy.


To see requires an interface, correct!
This is not ...[text shortened]... argumentation it wouldn't be possible to explain what it is!

[/b]

What numbers? Nanometers? First you explain one meter and then explain that it is one billionth of a meter. Easy.[/b]

Yes, and you understand 'red' by hearing 650X or 700X whatever the
numbers were you game me? That is enough to know what red is?
You think if I said 800X is a brighter hue of red than 700X you'd
grasp what "hue" was, or that 800 is a higher number than ?00?

You will not grasp what it is by sight alone, you'll have a more correct idea of what red is by reading something about the colour spectrum. Visual recognition of something is just one of many facets of an object.[/b]

Exactly how are you going to make someone who has never seen a
color let alone a color spectrum grasp something visual? By giving
them different numbers and telling them that 600X is not as bright
as 700X? You could make them understand 5 pounds is heavier than
3 pounds by letting them feel the wieght, but if you are not able to
give that input of feeling, you're really saying that 600 zepolot is
hordlri to 500 zepolot, and grasp that how? If you have no idea what
a zepolot is or a hordlri, you don't know what is being compared how.

how again would a person born blind know what a "hue" was, or
know what "visible" is, let alone "visible spectrum?"[/b][/i]

Are you saying it's impossible to explain how the eye works?[/b]

I said exactly what I meant to say, read it again! You have not at all
told me how a blind person could grasp 'red' you told me you would
give him/her a set of numbers, and tell them they mean something.
Exactly how is that understanding 'red'? That is only hearing numbers
nothing more!

As far as the invisible part of the spectrum goes, I understand what
visible is, so for me I'd have no trouble grasping your numbers and
gleaning an answer.
Kelly