Well, the problem, Chris, is that it is personal for each and every person. How the Holy Spirit works for me doesn't necessarily mean it will work the same for Max or for you or for anyone else. But I will try to elaborate on how it works for me. If I see someone in trouble or in pain, sometimes I feel moved to do something. Other times I do not feel that - like seeing someone on the street, for example. A better example was when I was going to church with a family that had a son stricken with leukemia. I had a Sega Genesis with about 20 games. I was in college at the time and never played it much. Something inside of me told me that it would make Daniel's day if he got a Sega Genesis. So, without hesitation I gave him my Sega Genesis and all of my games. To see the look on his face was something I will never forget. I got this sensation inside of me and that, my friend, is when I knew God was real. I guess the simplistic way to look at it is a conscience thing. But for me it goes deeper than that. I think most rational people know the difference between right and wrong. However, what separates the Holy Spirit working in someone to someone who is just "doing the right thing" is that the one who has the Holy Spirit working within them is NOT expecting any type of reward for doing what they did. It is just like Jesus dying on the cross. He gave divine love, not expecting any love in return. That is why many branches of Protestantism (sp?) talk about the Trinity and how God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit are all the same being. Each form gives divine love and is not expecting anything in return. I don't know if this helps you or causes you to have any more questions. I can't guarantee you that I can answer every one of your questions, but I will try.
Chris P. -- i've seen Him in many, many ways. in broken lives restored...in the circumstances of my life...in being faithful to His promises...in creation, itself...in the miracle of life...in unconcious thoughts...the power of prayer in my own life...and on and on.
I think ChrisP would say that those circumstances are arbitrary and you may very well believe these to be the workings of God, but for him they are no more arbitrary than the image of the Blessed Mother in a grilled cheese sandwhich. I think a solid philosophic answer to ChrisP's question comes in existence. Things either exist or they don't. If they do, we must ask if they exist in an arbitrary matter, or if they have certain laws which govern their existence. If one says arbitrary, then life really seems to have no purpose, we are all just insignifigant peons floating in some sort or being that is always at its highest because it is all that is. At this point it is hard to abstract some God out of the strata of existence or non-being. But if you say things do exist, and do have some sort of order to them, one must then begin to think about the limits of that order, man's role, man's purpose in that order etc. etc. Its a question of faith but it is not divorced from reason. Reason informs the decision both for and against.
I know others have answered this, but I will give it my take as well. Granted this is a very simplified version, but I think the point is that it doesn't have to be complex. The bible has a few different quotes about God being love, and those that know love know God. Manny mentioned giving his Sega Genisis and the joy it brought to the boy who received his gift, but also how it touched him. That is an example of love. Has anyone ever comforted you when they had nothing to gain from it? Has it ever touched you when people showed their concern or support for your problems? Have you ever supported or helped others when they were having troubles. Have you ever done something for the sole sake of making someone happy or easing their suffering? If those kinds of things demonstrate love, then God has made his presence known. He has shown himself(love). In a broad sense it is as simple as that. Obviously it can become more complex, complicated and in depth, but that is where the personal exploration and relation you feel towards love comes into play. You decide what place it holds in your life, how you feel it affects others, or can affect others, etc. It has many many shades to it. That's my two cents.
Thanks for the heads up! I'll have to find that album. I wish you could have seen the Mahavishnu Orchestra play the tiny Santa Rosa theatre on Telephone Road, with Peter Frampton opening. And I wish I could remember which year that was. It was after Frampton left Humble Pie, which was in '71, so it could have been in '71 or '72. Hammer and Cobham were playing in the Orchestra. I had gone to the theatre as a kid, and watching a concert like that in it was a transcendent experience! Tommy Bolin was a freakin' genius. I love Private Eyes, not to mention his other work. Have you got Enigmatic Ocean, by Jean Luc-Ponty? Terrific stuff. If there is a god, I'm sure he/she/it loves good rock, jazz, and jazz fusion. (on topic!) Keep D&D... Cool!!
And a good two cents it is. One of my quandaries is that I have done, or experienced, some of those things when overt religion was not in play at all. If there was a religious aspect to it, it was hidden from me. What does that mean? That I'm a hipster goofus? That I wouldn't recognize religion if it smacked me in the face? That I'm religious, but don't know it? I have experienced moments in concerts, outdoors, making love, and many other experiences that left me feeling something some of you might describe as religious, but to me was something else. Keep D&D Civil!!
Well I have my own problems with a lot of organized religion. I think that is one of the problems with the way some present religion. Sometimes they muck it up with dogma, segregation, false science, over irrationality etc. Some people have to believe that God is an actual being that will specifically communicate with people in standard oral communication. They need that to feel some sort of center in their life, or universe. I honestly don't think religion has to be so complicated. But at the same time the kind of experiences and feelings we were talking about do defy reason. It isn't natural that getting rid of an old game system should so deeply touch Manny, or the kid who got it. But it did. There was a need, it was filled, and it made some lasting impression on those involved. That feeling goes beyond human comprehension. That is all super-natural really is to me. The thing that is amazing about it is that it is simple and yet immensely complicated. If you wanted to search why those feelings happened, how to spread those feelings to others, what if those feelings could be applied locally, regionally, globally, etc? What kind of world would we live in if everyone could experience those feelings with some regularity? Anyway it is all a huge search and different people have different feelings, and those feelings may change over time. I think that is where the personal relationship with God(love) comes into play. Then when I think of Jesus and his sermon on the mount, and talking about not just ignoring our enemies but loving them, and if a theif steals something from you, not going to get back but actually giving him more of your possessions, I am floored. That is a love beyond human nature, and at least in my mind devine. People will argue about whether Jesus every really existed and what kind of a historical figure he was etc. That is interesting to study, but misses the larger point when people get upset. Jesus obviously existed. Whoever came up with that divine love talked about at the sermon of the mount was Jesus. If it was some writer a year after the son of Mary and Joseph died or an unnamed follower of a crucified person isn't what is important. What is important is that message. The creator of that message is what I would call the son of God. I enjoy studying about the bible, and the times in which it was created, what circumstances helped or hindered or effected it's creation etc. But when people get angry about the little details they are missing the point. I don't know how well I've expressed my beliefs, or am able to express them. It is something that I think about, pray about, study, etc. all the time. I also want to say that I am definitely not against all organized religion, and know that there is a lot of good that happens in churches, temples, etc. It is sometimes great to study learn, and look at things in different ways. One thing that I heard in a church that I will always think about was about Angels. This is another example of demystifying religion for me. Anyway the pastor mentioned that anyone who announces changes in your life that can serve God are angels. Angels don't always bring happy tiding though. Looking at the story of Mary and Joseph, imagine what the Angels visit meant for them. It meant that Mary would be outcast because she would be pregnant before being married. It meant that Joseph would marry that outcast girl, and that would open them both up to all sorts public scorn, humiliation etc. Joseph was a carpenter, yet he had to move with Mary who was pregnant etc. Those Angels didn't make Mary and Joseph's lives easier, they made their lives much harder. But the end result was great for the world. Again some people have to believe that Angels are little winged cherib beings that are only peaceful and bring tidings of hope. Sorry I have rattled on, Deckard, but I guess in my view you may or may not be religious, but you have known love, and like the bible says those that know love, know God. You may call it something different or give it no religious name at all. But I don't think names are what is important. The feelings that you felt are.
For some reason, that album ("Mind Transplant") is available only as an import and thus cost like 24 or 25 bucks on Amazon. But trust me, Deckard - it is well worth it if you are a fusion fan and especially a Bolin fan as Mouzon really showcases him on this album. Now you may also be interested in "Spectrum" by Billy Cobham - another classic fusion album and another that features Tommy Bolin. As a matter of fact, "Mind Transplant" has often been called "Spectrum II" but Cobham's album doesn't really showcase Bolin like Mouzon's does (or at least that is what I read as I have not purchased "Spectrum"...yet!). Yes, I got "Enigmatic Ocean" by Jean-Luc Ponty and I like it a lot. You probably know that Allan Holdsworth is one of the guitarists on that album and he is right up there with Bolin, McLaughlin, DiMeola, Coryell, etc as a fusion god at guitar. Right now I am listening to one of the last Miles' fusion albums before his retirement in 1975 in "Dark Magus" - wild stuff as always from my favorite musical artist (I think I now have like 23 of his albums!). FB, Great post as you did an outstanding job in making your feelings known. We may only agree on music stuff but I truly respect you alot and would love to meet you in person as you strike me as someone with lots of integrity - something that seems hard to find these days.
FB, I think you've thought this issue through pretty deeply. But I have to bring up an issue (not an issue in that I'm pissed off or angry, just an issue in terminology). When you say feeling, I don't think that strikes deep enough at what Christ was talking about. Feelings come and go. What is more at stake is when Christ talks about the hardened heart becoming unhardened; and I think part of the challenge is first seeing your heart as being just as hardened as everyone else's. I must ask you this question, why is it better to have good feelings rather than bad? Why is it that the message of Christ is better than say, the message of Hitler? And how does the feeling you described that both Manny and the kid had go beyond human comprehension? Sorry to be a grumpy gus or a grinch. Its just that I am a little skeptical of new age "feeling" movements. I really think I'm being a jerk by posting this, but I think that your post is a great strating point for a religious and spiritual life, but that its understanding can be deepend through, of all things, reason. I think I would feel worse if I didn't post this response. I can only imagine all the "well, my own spirituality/religion is what works for me" responses. Angels are intelligences silly, not winged cherubs .
Impossible. nobody ever does something for someone else without consideration of their own self. When you say people give with nothing to gain, you mean financial, political, something material and tangible, but not "nothing" in its entirety. People in such a situation give for their own personal hapiness. Whether it is to feel better about their giving nature, to relieve sadness (or guilt) for another person's situation, giving is always done to improve one's own life in some way. I am not being critical, by the way, as I am one of those people. My wife and I give a great amount to charity not for material gain, not for religious/spiritual reasons, but because we enjoy doing it and it brings us happiness (despite the debt that piled up for a while there). In any event, I don't think it matters why you give or help, whatever justification you present to yourself and others...just as long as you do it.
I know I agree somewhat, but don't think it detracts from the sentiment. At the same time I think I disagree, at least to some extent. That may not make any sense. Anyway, I think they do gain something. But it's not that they have something to gain that caused the action. I keep referencing Manny's post, but he obviously gained something from it, but I don't think that was the motivation. But even if knowing that giving something makes a person feel better and that is part of the motivation, I don't think that is a problem. But if a friend had a death in the family and other friends decide to spend time with that friend because they know the friend could use it, I don't think they really have much to gain from that, and may even be giving up their own fun, yet it does happen. It may be the golden rule principle, but they still don't gain that much from it. Maybe you call the satisfaction of knowing they did a good deed gaining something, I don't know.
Yep. IIRC, Phoebe Bouffet proved this beyond any reasonable doubt. "A society without a religion is like a maniac without a chainsaw."
What's your take on the issue Batman? The question is not about religion, its about God. Let me some it up like this. MAybe I should have made 3 options, but let me put it in terms of Plato's Cave. You have the Cave with prisoners and imagemakers, you have the path out of the cave, and you have the outside of the cave. Plato is not real clear if it is possible to get out of the cave or not. Thinkers after him say that you can that the outside is some sort of Transcendence not to distant from God, these would include Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas. After them the thought changes to, there is only the cave, nothing else lets make it comfortable and safe and hope not to die, seen in characters such as Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Hobbes, Rousseau, etc. After them we get the, there is an outside of the cave but no one can get there because it is unitelligible abyss so basically we are all stuck in this damn cave so lets see who can name the shadows on the wall the best, seen in the likes of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida. I'd agree with the first take on the matter.
Thanks for asking and giving me a chance to clear my name. I hate writing about this stuff because it does come off kind of new agey sounding. In truth I think it is the opposite. New age crud has to do with crystals and energies and all this stuff. I'm trying to get away from it and say that basically it is just love. I know that when I write about stuff like this it comes off as this kind of sappy syrupy 'power of love' crap. I am talking about the power of love but not in some kind of, skin deep, Oprah type, self-help way. I'm talking about a real examination of what causes it, why sometimes it can feel different than others, etc. With Manny's post and my assertion that it is beyond human comprehension the explanation goes like this. Manny had a game system he didn't use much. He saw a kid who might want it. Manny gave it to the kid. That would be a nice thing to do, but also practical to a certain extent. He gave an item where it will get more use. Yet the event was more than that. It meant enough to Manny that he cited it as a way that God manifested himself to Manny. Looking at the event in a matter-of-fact scientific study(or pseudo scientific study, since I am no scientist)kind of way there is no explanation why this event should impress itself so on someone that they see it as manifestation of religion. The same goes with anything that might seem small or incosequential if written about and read or seen by an impartial eye, but to the parties involved it holds a more profound meaning. I certainly don't think you are being a grynch or anything by posting this. I also didn't want to start a flood of emotional gushy spiritual confessions. I am aware that my posts may have come across as that, but I'm not particularly emotional about it, nor do I really feel gushy. I hate over sentimental crap, mushy feel good stuff where people more significance on consequences and label it fate and all that baloney. When I mentioned angels just being someone who signals a change, and all that, I was trying to make make more clear that it is much less spiritual hocus pocus than some people like to make it out to be. At the same time simple events like the gift of the sega can be more profound, at least to the people involved. It is because I like to think of myself as a rational, show me the facts type person that this intrigues me. I'm strongly opposed to trying to make unprofound things overly profound, and force that feeling where it doesn't exist. Because I do spend a lot of time focusing on this in my own life, and almost never speak of it to anyone(I actually think it's probably boring and impossible for anyone else to full understand another person's exact spirituality), I guess once the topic came up, some of the thoughts I had came out, even if they came out in an unclear or misleading manner. If I started reading my posts from someone else and thought they were getting all new age, feel good, self help stuff, I would try and urge them to stop in order to save the sanity of the bbs. Here is an aside, to try and illustrate my point even more. I hate Oprah's show, and Oprah's style. I remember when she was in the trial for the beef thing with the Texas cattlemen and she won. Afterwards she talked about praying for that verdict, and trusting the lord, and just putting it in his control and how grateful she was when she it was over, I felt sick to my stomach. It wasn't that big of deal, but it exemplifies how some people make a big stink out of nothing. It's like she would be looking for a parking spot and just trust that the lord would look out for and then break down with grateful joy, and praise for the lord once she found a parking spot. I know she had a rough background and maybe that is how she has to deal with everything. I guess if it works for her, then great. I just feel bad that she is selling that kind of thinking to the general public. It cheapens the kind of feelings I'm talking about when they do happen, and makes people to self concious about it to let it happen naturally as often as it might anyway.
FB- Good, I didn't really know a tasteful way to call feel good stuff mushy crap but you seem to have encapsulated my thought quite well. I still need an answer to the question why is it better to have good feelings/ (my terminology) a soul oriented towards the good rather than apathy, a soul oriented towards what has generally been termed evil, or a corrupted soul. Outside the terms of theology, how is this possible? Doesn't it seem a little arbitrary upon first glance? How does man know love is better than hate? Or is love, I believe Bailey posited it this way, just an emotional feeling that breaks the ennui of life? Personally, I think a love closely rooted to the temporal virtues, prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude-- can easily be proven by philosophy; but when seen in the theological/supernatural virtues-- becomes a harder task to prove from philosophy. That is not to say they lay outside of the realm of reason, its just to say that they seem arbitrary without a religious construct. I mean really, Charity? Where do we get that crap?
Sure he did. He said s himself: Something inside of me told me that it would make Daniel's day if he got a Sega Genesis. So, without hesitation I gave him my Sega Genesis and all of my games. To see the look on his face was something I will never forget. In other words, he knew the kid would like it and he knew that seeing the kid like it would be good. He specifically gave to gain. Re-read my post. I said it doesn't matter. I said that I am that way - I only give for selfish reasons, I do not claim that it is something outside of me or bigger than I am, I do everything to bring myself happiness because that is what i think life is about. I am an egoist, not to be mistaken for an egotist. twhyzqrstuv, You are fooling yourself if you think hanging out with me would be "enjoyable" or "interesting."
Sorry I forgot to answer your question. I guess it is up to the person what kind of feelings they think are best. It is my belief that once a person experiences the good feelings, they will want to experience them again. If it is not everyone that would enjoy it would be most people. If we have a world full of people moving in that direction it would only be better for those around us. And in a selfish way what is good for our neighbors is probably good for us. Apathy or hate doesn't improve our surroundings, may not improve ourselves, and won't imrpove our neighbors. This is very generally speaking and of course their acceptable and unacceptable ways to go about it. I'm not sure why you would say the temporal values are arbitrary without the realm of religion though. I consider myself religious and enjoy church when I do go. I was a member of the presbyterian church, until I moved around too much and a frequent visitor to the Christian(disciples of christ) Church. I'm not against all organized religion, just a lot of it. I'm actually for the idea of it, but depending on the pastor, and members have trouble finding one I like. But I think what feels good, or moves a person moves them with or without the construct of religion. Religion may be how they explore those feelings, or whatever, and may help form the beliefs or at least an angle to approach those beliefs. Love may just be an emotion that breaks the ennui of life, as Baily said. What I am saying is the amazing part is that it does break the ennui of life. What is it in our nature that makes it feel differently than eating a good meal, or something more mundane? Why does it feel the way it does? It is that more than what love actually is that lead me to question the origin of it.