So you are saying that the Holy Spirit is a ghost? As in some dead person’s spirit? What is your basis for that? It seems to me that the Holy spirit is considered something unique and non-duplicated, just like God is considered to be. Thus, the Holy Spirit cannot be used as a template for believing in ghosts any more than God can be used as a template for believing in Zeus.
I am not an atheist, although I find them much easier to debate with, than a “believer”. I believe in G-d. The Holy Spirit is not a ghost as in Booo waaaa. IMHO it is just a remnant, a reminder of G-d’s presence. It is a feeling not a spooky looking creature. I absolutely question the existence of ghosts. If I try to make factual claims about G-d here in GD, instead of just stating that it is my personal belief; I will get busted by the same people who called you on your ghosts.
If you don’t want to be challenged, stay out of the debate forum. You seem shocked that people aren’t just swallowing your assertions whole. If you’re so confident that yopu’re right then make an argument that can’t be so effortlessly refuted as what you’ve presented so far.
I don’t believe in God or “Holy Spirits.” There’s no inconsistency on my part.
Jesus was a person. He died. He was resurrected. He is his ghost. If you can’t debate the existence of God in this debate, then what are you doing debating the existence of ghosts?
I said before:
I guess Blake likes beating a dead horse because this horse is dead. He said “The fact that no evidence exists against ghosts does not support chicksdigscars’ extraordinary assertion that they do exist.” I never said it did, honey.
Read that again. The fact that no evidence exists against ghosts does not support chicksdigscars’ extraordinary assertion that they do exist.
I never said that the LACK of evidence against ghosts proved their existence. I said I saw ghosts.
And for the record, IWLN suggested only one definition of ghost. Why can’t all ghosts be remnants of their owner’s former presence? Someone asked for a definition of ghosts. That is my definition: remnant of the former owner’s presence. Not the “BOO” kind of ghosts that IWLN referred to.
DUH!! To John Mace. I once again thought I was offering a rebuttal to Joe Random when he said that the Holy Spirit was just “some dead person’s ghost.”
After you’re done proving Jesus was “resurrected” why don’t you explain exactly what this “remnant” consists of? What is it made of. Where is it located in the human body? What physical properties does it possess?
You haven’t really defined anything you just gave it a different name.
Sure, I will do something that scholars have been trying to do for thousands of years. And when I am done proving Jesus was resurrected, I will find a cure for cancer.
I am sure there are others who will happily quote Scripture to show that Jesus was resurrected, but it will go over your head.
I asked if you believed that, not that I thought it was true. (In reality, I believe in neither ghosts nor the Holy Spirit).
What does one have to do with the other? Are you implying that, if one believes in God, one must believe in everything?
I’m honestly not following your line of reasoning. At first, I thought that you were implying that the Holy Spirit was a form of ghost, and thus believing in the HS would require you to believe in ghosts in general. Is that what you were getting at?
I believe in G-d. The Holy Spirit is not a ghost as in Booo waaaa. IMHO it is just a remnant, a reminder of G-d’s presence. It is a feeling not a spooky looking creature. I absolutely question the existence of ghosts. If I try to make factual claims about G-d here in GD, instead of just stating that it is my personal belief; I will get busted by the same people who called you on your ghosts.
But yes, it’s true.