Modern Idolatry

[fccool]

I'd like to have a poll on that, just out of curiosity.

[John317]

"You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me!"

Who is "me" in that verse?

Do we know Him? Can He really be known?

Or can we only think we may know Him?

The verse can be legitimately translated either as indicative present active, "you search," or as imperative present active, "Search..."

The coordinating conjunction "kai" is best translated here as "and," not "but." Kai usually means "and," "also," "even."

If the writer had intended to convey a strong contrast, he would have used alla or de.

Quote:

ESV--John 5:39

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and [kai] it is they that bear witness about me."

KJV--John 5:39

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Not even the Bible can give anybody eternal life. Yet the Bible is essential in order to help us know the Person who does give us eternal life. John 17: 3; Luke 24: 25-27.

[Pockey]

I'm not trying to be impolite here, or deny that you have have experienced something, but use your logic here. If I told you that I'm really close friends with Bill Clinton because I've read his book, and because I constantly send him e-mails... BUT I have never met him face-to-face, would that position me as a close friend of Clinton?

[John317]

Adventists don't agree. They interpret the idea of the literal throne, and go as far as pointing the exact location of that place.

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

Really? I was never raised that way. Symbolic, symbolic....location, don't know!

Were you raised in the SDA church to believe that God's throne is symbolic and that the heavenly sanctuary where Christ serves as our mediator is also symbolic?

If so, that is contrary to the Bible, the writings of Ellen White, and to the beliefs of the SDA Church.

God the Father is a literal, material Being with a body and parts. So is Jesus Christ. He's a man now as He was when the disciples saw Him ascend into the heavens.

Check out the Fundamental Beliefs and Ellen White's writings.

Quote:

24. Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary:

There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. ...

Seventh-day Adventists don't believe that this is symbolic; we believe it is literally true. In fact, the Bible itself tells us that the heavenly sanctuary is REAL. What was on earth was symbolic of the REAL sanctuary. If the heavenly sanctuary and God's throne are symbolic, then the earthly sanctuary was a symbol of a symbol. But this is not what the Bible teaches.

Hebrews 9:24

For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true [real], but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.

Seventh-day Adventist believe there is a real sanctuary in heaven where a real Christ ministers for us before the REAL God.

1 Thes. 1:9

For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true [real] God.

[John317]

You should do things not because you love someone and want to please them and get their approval and relationship. Neither you should do them because someone tells you that you SHOULD do them. Do them, because you truly believe it's the right thing to do.

What is the difference between agreeing with God and obeying God? Is there any difference?

What if you don't agree with God? Would you still obey Him?

God doesn't command us to obey Him only when we agree with Him.

It could be dangerous for a child to only obey the parent when the child agrees with the parent.

The same is true of humans in relationship to God.

For instance, there are many people who agree with God that they need to rest one day in seven. But they don't agree with the notion that the rest needs to be on the seventh day. It makes no sense to them, so they choose to disobey God.

Obeying God in the matter of the seventh-day Sabbath is a symbol that we believe obeying God is important when we don't necessarily understand and agree with Him. We obey God because He is God and we are His creation.

[John317]

Christ's words Christ said "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me."

Does it mean that He literally stands and knocks at your door, or is it merely a metaphor? If it is a metaphor, then why do you begin interpreting other like passages so literally? The example that you give is a metaphorical concept of indwelling knowledge and understanding. It does not mean that God will literally occupy your body. To say that, would be the very meaning of what I think you mean by "spiritualizing".

Do you believe that demons literally dwell in and take control of people's bodies and minds?

The Bible is clear that they do.

Mark 1:25-26

But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out of him!" [26] And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying out with a loud voice, came out of him.

Below are some verses which describe a personal relationship with Christ:

John 6:56

Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

John 15:4,5--

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.

John 14:21-23

Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." [22] Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, "Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?" [23] Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

[John317]

... Do you believe that these people don't have the Holy Spirit, or do you believe that it only "works" when people obey God?

Isn't Holy Spirit supposed to lead one to the truth of obeying those in the first place?

So, it becomes a rather paradoxical requirements that you have:

a) You have to have Holy Spirit to understand the truths in order to obey them properly

You can't understand and obey these truths properly without having the Holy Spirit.

Do you understand the paradox in the above?

The Holy Spirit works on everyone's mind and heart, to convict them of sin and also to point them to Christ.

We wouldn't have a desire for truth, nor would we do anything kind and loving, without the work of the Holy Spirit.

It's quite true that we can't understand the Scriptures without the Holy Spirit. But when we resist the Holy Spirit and refuse to accept His work in our lives, we keep Him from coming upon us in His full power.

In John 20: 22, Jesus gave His disciples the Holy Spirit, yet Acts 1: 5,8 show us that the fullness of the Spirit didn't come upon them until the day of Pentecost.

You can be sure that if they hadn't received the Spirit in John 20: 22, they wouldn't have experienced the full power of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.

It is the same with us today: if we don't receive the Spirit now, obeying the little that He shows us, God won't give us more of the Holy Spirit's power. We have to use what we have of His Spirit before God will give additional measures of the Holy Spirit.

[John317]

(quoting): The argument is made that naming God is never really naming God but only naming our understanding of God. To take our ideas of the divine and hold them as if they correspond to the reality of God is thus to construct a conceptual idol built from the materials of our mind.

Originally Posted By: joeb

...Is this from the book on doubt? If so, it seems to me that this is an attack on the very basics of Christianity. Jesus tells us that He will send us the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. Not some truth, but all truth, which includes the truth about who God is.

I agree, joeb.

By the way, I want to welcome you to ClubAdventist. Thank you very much for coming here. I hope and pray you will have a good experience getting to know the members and sharing your faith.

It seems to me that if our concept is built on what God has revealed to us in the Scriptures about Himself, we won't be building an idol at all, but we will be building on the truth of God's word.

[joeb]

fccool,

I suggest that one of us start a new thread titled "The Attributes of God" or "Who is God", or something along those lines before we further hijack this thread as I see the main thrust of our conversation so far as being exactly that. Maybe if we can define and agree on who God is our differences will disappear, or at least we will understand each other's position more clearly. At the very least the exercise will cause us both have a better defined understanding of who the God we worship is.

What say you?

[joeb]

I agree, joeb.

By the way, I want to welcome you to ClubAdventist. Thank you very much for coming here. I hope and pray you will have a good experience getting to know the members and sharing your faith.

It seems to me that if our concept is built on what God has revealed to us in the Scriptures about Himself, we won't be building an idol at all, but we will be building on the truth of God's word.

Thanks, John. BTW, you've already welcomed me once. Now you make me feel really special by welcoming me twice....

I agree with you about how if our understanding of God is the Biblical one that it isn't, and cannot be, an idol.

[fccool]

Quote:

And what if I could talk to Clinton in my mind, and he would hear me and help me and even protect and watch over me, without me even seeing Clinton in front of me. Wouldn't that be a personal relationship?

If Clinton provided food for me through grocery store which I work and pay for, and protection by means of local police, or avoiding accidents on the road... that by definition is indirect relationship.

Why are you trying to re-define what "personal relationship" is? Moses had a personal relationship with God. God would speak to him, Moses would talk back. That's a true personal relationship.

You reading a book, and then talking in prayer is not personal relationship. It's indirect relationship. Even if author can read thoughts, He does not answer your every question directly and personally, like you wife, or like your personal friend does. You have to guess what the answer to your requests is. If you pray and things happen per your request, God said yes. If you did, and they did not happen, then the answer is no. By this means, people attribute to God all sorts of silly things.

Quote:

Would one appreciate it more if their daughter obeyed out of love, or because she thinks it's the right thing to do?

Love and empathy come from understanding. If you think you love someone without first understanding them, and you do it based on some feelings that you feel... I think we can agree that it's not love.

If I walk in the desert, and there's a child laying, dying from thirst. How many people would just leave it there to die? Do we need a Holy Book to consult in that instance? There are people in this forum who believe that at that particular instance, God would fill your mind with a thought to do right thing, and if you do wrong that's because you follow your own evil desires. I'm not going to go into implications and paradoxes associate with this, but let's just say these don't work out too well for Christian belief.

Quote:

How can one truly change on their own? Ellen White says Do you expect to become better through your own efforts?

Who's efforts are you to become better through? Doesn't God require for you to obey? Isn't obeying something an effort on your part? Don't you have to actually go around and do something, or change your mind about something?

The difference is not "who does it", the difference is the availability of information. See, Christians paint evil in rather comic book manner. The Satan just does evil, because he is Evil. He wears Hitler is my hero T-Shirts, he's favorite TV show is Jerry Springer, he has a toilet made out of cute kittens, and if you need to pick a good couch just ask Satan for advice and do the opposite.

You will accuse me of "straw-man" , but that's sort of the point. Satan in Biblical Narrative and subsequent Christian dogma is a straw man. Satan literally means Opponent. I mean, you can't get any more 1-dimentional as that. I've written screenplays my entire life, and if I have an evil character named "Antagonist", I'd be laughed out any screenplay contest.

- Hey, you just killed my father. Who are you?

- I am the (dramatic pause) Antagonist.

Satan is a metaphorical embodiment of certain ideals. A narrative without a bad guy, is a narrative that does not have a conflict. A narrative without a conflict have very little change in characters that conflict should invoke. Without change in characters, we learn very little from the story. It becomes "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" type of story. And since this world is full of conflict, from small to large, it does not make sense and in primitive forms of legends and writing... one has to fill that void with another literary device, which is named Opponent, and Accuser.

People are doing terrible things because of improper education and information given to them. Or lack of proper information to base their decisions on.

Quote:

"Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." Jeremiah 13:23.

This is not a literal statement about condition of humanity. It's a poetic expression that states that these people who Jeremiah is addressing have screwed up pretty bad. Earlier he compared them to a little girls who were raped because they had reputations as whores.

Quote:

And if you ask yourself,

“Why has this happened to me?”—

it is because of your many sins

that your skirts have been torn off

and your body mistreated.

This statement goes directly above the verse that you've just mentioned. Do you approach every raped woman and say, it's because of your sins that you've been raped. It's silly. It's a poetic expression of a guy raging with fury, and who wants a very specific group of people to understand that they've screwed up in a specific period of time. To lift that concept, and to apply it as a theological maxim is the very reason that Christianity can't generally explain what they teach in a coherent and logical matter, thus every person who joins is asked to "feel it" through mystery concepts that will later be revealed to them if only they believe and obey.

And that's exactly the source of the problem... people take 1 statement here, 1 statement there, and build a dogma out of it, which is deeply illogical and contains multiple paradoxes. Who was that statement spoken to? Why was it spoken to them. How does this poetic expression can literally apply to entire humanity?

Quote:

There is help for us only in God. We must not wait for stronger persuasions, for better opportunities, or for holier tempers. We can do nothing of ourselves.

Really? Can a person go out in the market, and buy fruits and veggies without direction of the Holy Spirit? Would buying fruits and veggies be considered a good thing to do?

Can person on their own wear something decent, and cover up properly when they go to work? Would that be considered a good and proper thing to do?

Could they decide not to kill a person that brushed them off at work, knowing that that person has some trouble at home. Do they need Holy Spirit to see and do that?

That becomes the paradox of ascribing every good deed to Holy Spirit. It means that people in general have no free will. Either God is blaming them for something that they can't help but to do (can a leopard change his skin?), or He rewards them for something that God himself does on their behalf.

In terms of human maturity, and responsibility... that does not make any logical sense.

Quote:

We must come to Christ just as we are. SC 31.1 This is liberating! I don't want all the burden of having to change on my own. I can't do it on my own.

Coming back to George Carlin's clip about human motivation. It was rather crude and simplistic, but let me expand on it.

The basic idea is that you either want some change in your life, or you don't.

Let's take a basic example. You have to learn Spanish. You have 4 hours a day of free time to balance to learn Spanish, but you decide to spend them watching TV and spending time on the forum

The overall result is that you don't want to learn Spanish. You want to watch TV and spend times on the forums. You would like to learn Spanish, and think it would be a beneficial thing, but you don't really want it.

There's a fundamental difference, that I hope you understand. Dedication and pursuit of something is what separates people who want to do something, and people who would like to do something. This applies to visually every thing in our lives. If you are dedicated to take shortcuts and steal, instead of patiently working for the same result... that's not an issue of "evil nature vs not listening to Holy Spirit", that's an issue of conflicting desires that come through variable experience.

If person really want something, they will do it. Teaching them that their inability is liberating, only liberates them from responsibility and maturity.

Quote:

It's liberating to know that changing on my own is impossible. It takes the burden off my back.

Do you understand the paradox of what you are saying in the above? I never coddle the idea that people can change on their own. No man is an island. All of us need support. There has to be external information that you would use to go by.

But the difference between your definition of salvation, and mine is the difference between a person who can't swim yet desperately tries to get to the life-boat inch-by-inch ... and the person who just sink under, hoping that someone else will pull them out of that water. If you are not willing to help yourself because you think it's impossible, then why should God be willing to help you?

It's like a math student sitting and saying "I just can't solve this problem. Can you help me? But you do all of the work. I'm not capable."

What would anyone learn from such experiences?

[CoAspen]

My reply was to the idea of a literal throne and exact location. Considering the time when the Bible was written 'Throne' would be well understood as to mean an actual chair which meant He was a King and a powerful God. If written today, it could as well been said 'sitting in an oval office'. So, yes, I see it as symbolic of Gods 'position' and 'power' in heavan.

Would it make any difference if the chair is literal or not? Don't believe so, as it is about God not the setting place. Do we know where heavan is? Somewhere beyound this world or another dimension or universe could be a best guess. Does the location make God any different? No.

So I see the question of modern idolaty as being about our trust/ belief in God or the words about God.

Yes, a poll would be interesting! The results would probably be very interesting as long as the 'terms/words' are defined first so all are 'voting' useing the same definitions.

[fccool]

Quote:

My reply was to the idea of a literal throne and exact location. Considering the time when the Bible was written 'Throne' would be well understood as to mean an actual chair which meant He was a King and a powerful God. If written today, it could as well been said 'sitting in an oval office'. So, yes, I see it as symbolic of Gods 'position' and 'power' in heavan.

Certainly. Hence my continual quest to discredit certain interpretation that meant to be understood in terms of concepts.

Yet, for many religious folk, the idea that these concepts are literal become more important than ideas that they underline and personify (whether these were real people and places or not)

Quote:

Would it make any difference if the chair is literal or not? Don't believe so, as it is about God not the setting place. Do we know where heavan is? Somewhere beyound this world or another dimension or universe could be a best guess. Does the location make God any different? No.

If you make it an official church dogma that people are to believe, than it makes a difference, because now you have to defend it and tell other that say it's not really literal that they are wrong.

Quote:

So I see the question of modern idolatry as being about our trust/ belief in God or the words about God.

The only difference between the modern idolatry and that of old, is that the modern is more civil, in most cases. Idol is not merely a piece of wood carved into something. Idol is the representation of deity as a whole as an idea.

You would not walk over to a statue of a calf, and automatically deduce that it's an idol. If the calf personifies a deity and the background information is filled, then you have yourself and idol.

So, when people paint God as a being with legs and feet, and physical location... and then say that God is a spiritual being that's omniscient, yet anthropomorphic, what does that mean?

Quote:

Yes, a poll would be interesting! The results would probably be very interesting as long as the 'terms/words' are defined first so all are 'voting' useing the same definitions.

I hope I did not screw up too bad asking the questions, but check the Quiz about View of God as taught by local churches. So far, there's 4 for 4 disagreement with you (if you count the PM I got)

[CoAspen]

Used to the disagreeing! Much of the SDA'ism preached on here is not always 'church sponsored' but 'wished' for!!

4 out of 4331 members...better wait a little longer!

[Pockey]

You reading a book, and then talking in prayer is not personal relationship. It's indirect relationship. Even if author can read thoughts, He does not answer your every question directly and personally, like you wife, or like your personal friend does. You have to guess what the answer to your requests is. If you pray and things happen per your request, God said yes. If you did, and they did not happen, then the answer is no. By this means, people attribute to God all sorts of silly things

[fccool]

Quote:

What's silly is us trying to proclaim our own definition of a direct relationship I think you see things concretely and I see them abstractly.

We are not talking about direct relationship. We are talking about difference between personal and impersonal relationships in context of human relationships that's not very applicable to infinite and perfect being and the relationship to such being as expressed through reading the Bible, praying, and tithing... etc.

Quote:

Are you sure? So you disagree with what Ellen White wrote about repentance? She said Do you expect to become better through your own efforts? "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." Jeremiah 13:23. There is help for us only in God. We must not wait for stronger persuasions, for better opportunities, or for holier tempers. We can do nothing of ourselves. We must come to Christ just as we are.

It's not a matter of what Ellen White said. She is pulling that verse out of its metaphorical context to construct some rather vague point on the subject.

Would she read the portion about people being raped because of their sins and take it in similar manner, that people today are raped because of their sins? I highly doubt it.

Use your own head, not Ellen White quotes. Either you want something, or you don't. Either you decide to change, or you don't.

"We do nothing of ourselves", and "We must come to Christ as we are" are cliches that people use without largely understand the underlying meaning. What does that mean in concrete terms? Can you translate it for regular people in language that they can understand?

Quote:

Again, a very concrete and tangential analogy. We are on totally different wavelengths. Was I talking about groceries? Or was I talking about change of heart?

What is change of heart? Can you speak precise English here? Do we need our literal organ replaced? Once again, it's a vague cliche that must be defined.

I'm trying to deconstruct things to show you that your language largely revolves around canned phrases and generalities. You've said that "we can do nothing on our own". The point about groceries simply shows that it's not true.

Big changes can be broken down into hundreds little changes that we can indeed make on our own. While we will never be perfect, it does not mean that we are "full of sin". A liar is not a person who told lies in his life. A liar is a person who is consistently lying. Likewise, a thief is not a person who stole something once upon a time. A thief is a person who consistently steals for living.

We can't cast a person who lied, and person who consistently lying into same definition as liar.

If we can't do nothing on our own, then why is it that we are asked to make a certain choices to begin with?

Quote:

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. We do have a part in this, we're not robots. We have to cooperate with Him. But I'm talking about a real change of heart, all the effort in the world won't change our hearts on our own. Only God can change our hearts.

Then you should say that "we can't change our heart on our own". When I read "We can do nothing on our own", how should I understand it?

What heart are you talking about BTW? That's another issue. Whenever Christian becomes "churched" they take on this jargon that "makes sense to them", but something that they can't avoid using in order to explain their beliefs.

I'm not merely pointing these things to you because I don't have a general idea of what you are saying, but if we don't deconstruct the meaning behind these metaphors, we won't understand the true meaning of what it is that you are really saying?

What do you really mean by "Only God can change our hearts". What heart are you talking about?

[Pockey]

To me, I believe it means two things. One, is feeling sorry for a sin. And the second part is a turning away from it.

Btw if I offended by my prior post I apologize. I rushed through reading it, and upon second reading it does make sense what you were saying.

[ClubV12]

I'm learning to enjoy some of these "canned phrases" as some call them. I do hear many of them over and over, and in recent months I find myself actually starting to understand them! There not just "canned phrases", they make sense. I just didn't "get it" before. Some of us, like me, NEED to hear them again and again.

Like righteousness by faith, I heard that over and over. But it didn't sink in, no matter how it was explained. Until one night, when I really felt the need of the Lord, when I came really close to Him because there was no other place to go (is that a canned phrase?), THATS when I finally understood it! Not all have to get to that low place, it just happened to be where I was when I got that specific blessing. Sometimes a deeper understanding of a "canned phrase" occurs just driving down the road, or listening to a song, sometimes when I seemingly don't have a care in the world. Thats when a canned phrase turns into something else, a deeper understanding of Gods love and His plan of salvation.

Sorry, not all canned phrases can be summed up with a definition, some you just have to experience. My apologies if that sounds "egotistical" or frustrating. Spiritual things really are spiritually understood, if you get it. A deep truth in that statement.

[John317]

... If written today, it could as well been said 'sitting in an oval office'. So, yes, I see it as symbolic of Gods 'position' and 'power' in heavan.

God is not elected, so "president" doesn't match what God is and does. "King" is still the most fitting and appropriate.

Daniel 7: 9-14 is a description of God's throne. It has wheels because it actually moves. See also Ezekiel chapter one.

[Pockey]

I'm learning to enjoy some of these "canned phrases" as some call them. I do hear many of them over and over, and in recent months I find myself actually starting to understand them! There not just "canned phrases", they make sense. I just didn't "get it" before. Some of us, like me, NEED to hear them again and again.

Like righteousness by faith, I heard that over and over. But it didn't sink in, no matter how it was explained. Until one night, when I really felt the need of the Lord, when I came really close to Him because there was no other place to go (is that a canned phrase?), THATS when I finally understood it! Not all have to get to that low place, it just happened to be where I was when I got that specific blessing. Sometimes a deeper understanding of a "canned phrase" occurs just driving down the road, or listening to a song, sometimes when I seemingly don't have a care in the world. Thats when a canned phrase turns into something else, a deeper understanding of Gods love and His plan of salvation.

Sorry, not all canned phrases can be summed up with a definition, some you just have to experience. My apologies if that sounds "egotistical" or frustrating. Spiritual things really are spiritually understood, if you get it. A deep truth in that statement.

[fccool]

Quote:

The Holy Spirit works on everyone's mind and heart, to convict them of sin and also to point them to Christ.

We wouldn't have a desire for truth, nor would we do anything kind and loving, without the work of the Holy Spirit.

Ironically, while you are claiming to be Arminian, you are projecting a Calvinist view of total depravity here.

Humans in your view are so evil and broken, that even to sympathize with each other God has to inject ideas into their brain.

Quote:

It's quite true that we can't understand the Scriptures without the Holy Spirit. But when we resist the Holy Spirit and refuse to accept His work in our lives, we keep Him from coming upon us in His full power.

In John 20: 22, Jesus gave His disciples the Holy Spirit, yet Acts 1: 5,8 show us that the fullness of the Spirit didn't come upon them until the day of Pentecost.

Here's where you are being vague on what you are actually believe. If humanity is being under the influence of the Holy Spirit when they do good... wouldn't it mean that they have it? What's the difference of having it, and being under influence?

Can someone receive only a little bit of the Holy Spirit? Does Holy Spirit come in little pieces?

You are trying to make some case for the "fullness" that was delayed, but how can one receive the Spirit of God in partial means?

Quote:

You can be sure that if they hadn't received the Spirit in John 20: 22, they wouldn't have experienced the full power of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.

The narrative supports the idea that they've had it all alone. How can one have only partial power. It makes little sense.

Quote:

It is the same with us today: if we don't receive the Spirit now, obeying the little that He shows us, God won't give us more of the Holy Spirit's power. We have to use what we have of His Spirit before God will give additional measures of the Holy Spirit.

Do you understand the paradox of this? You are speaking of Holy Spirit as some sort of power bar, or magic elixir. Isn't Holy Spirit supposed to be a person? So, explain to me how God would withhold the full power of the Spirit from someone?

[fccool]

Quote:

Sorry, not all canned phrases can be summed up with a definition, some you just have to experience. My apologies if that sounds "egotistical" or frustrating. Spiritual things really are spiritually understood, if you get it. A deep truth in that statement.

What does it mean to "spiritually understand something". Are you claiming to be a spiritual being? Or do you claim that Holy Spirit understands things for you :)

[joeb]

fccool,

If I say someone is "heartless", what am I referring to?

[fccool]

You may be referring to a ruthless person, or you may be referring to a person with no motivation, or a person who literally just got his heart removed . Even in this fairly-well understood word, the semantic meaning is split. If I say that "This guy is heartless." It's up to me then to interpret the context and figure out what is it that you mean.

When I hear that spiritual things are "spiritually understood", what am I to make of this statement? It's a rather vague statement that can mean just about anything in terms of how we really understand things.

[joeb]

You may be referring to a ruthless person, or you may be referring to a person with no motivation, or a person who literally just got his heart removed . Even in this fairly-well understood word, the semantic meaning is split. If I say that "This guy is heartless." It's up to me then to interpret the context and figure out what is it that you mean.

When I hear that spiritual things are "spiritually understood", what am I to make of this statement? It's a rather vague statement that can mean just about anything in terms of how we really understand things.

The common understanding of the word "heartless" is a lack of pity, compassion, empathy, and understanding for other people. Saying someone is "heartless" in that context is a pretty common expression.

Saying someone has a "good heart" is very commonly understood to mean just the opposite of "heartless".

In the Bible the "heart" is often referred to as the seat_of/wellspring of our emotion, motivation, thought, feelings, etc.... All the things that drive us and make us who we are.

So, when we say only God can change our heart it's saying only God can implant completely new motivations within us that are complete opposites of what normally motivates human beings. Where once dwelt greed as a major motivator, altruism and unselfishness become the motivators. Where once dwelt lust and passion restraint and self-possession are now the motivating forces. And so on.... This is what is meant by a change of heart.

To really give you an answer to your question concerning "spiritually understood" we need to first discuss the nature of God, but that's a huge subject and needs another thread.