The Holy Spirit Explored (Scripture & Photos Examined)

No it hasn't.

No they haven't.

Given that "spiritual truth" is - at best - extremely tenuous and not subject to any genuine verification then claiming the bible to be a "reliable source" (especially a "proven" one) doesn't mean a damned thing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK, Thanks. I clicked the link earlier but did not read it. I know about "orbs" but for some reason thought they just appeared in photographs. Orbs captured by a camera will always be open to questions regarding lens imperfections\anomalies and chip\film etc. I imagine that companies like Sony would know more.

As far as actually seeing the orb, it is possible there are orbs. As far as i know this is pretty much accepted that they remain possible. Another important consideration is a vision problem. Could be early onset of a problem or age related.

Another interesting thing are rods. I have captured a rod on video. I captured some still images but pretty sure they are lost on an old hard drive or format. There is a religious back story to this rod too...that was probably coincidental though. Some web sites claim they are bugs being captured at 29.97 fps...it did not look like a bug to me though. It was a classic rod.

To add to that, it kind of boils down to what you want to believe. As i said earlier, the orbs have not been debunked either.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As far as Noah's Ark is concerned - Fox News has reported on the findings:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/27/noahs-ark-found-turkey-ararat/

And National Geographic reports that the expedition team is "99.9 percent" sure that Noah's Ark has been found in Turkey.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/

That means that there is a 99.9% chance that you are lying and are speaking babble.

As far as the Egyptian chariots are concerned - here is a link with pictures of the chariot wheels under the Red Sea:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/chariot-wheels.htm#.VBDIcmd0w5s

Proof that the Holy Bible is a reliable source of information.

 

The rod could be a tunnel. The tunnel is the work of the Holy Spirit. God creates a tunnel through the Holy Spirit leading to heaven. This tunnel is called a whirlwind in scripture.

2 Kings 2:1 And it came to pass, when the LORD was about to take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal.

I thank you for your open, sincere, honesty. You speak from the heart.

 

Yeah.
That's 2 years old.
You really should try to keep up.
They haven't provided ANYTHING but claims and few photos.
And even J. Randall Price (who's a Christian and works for Noah's Ark Ministries International) stated that the claim is more than likely to be a hoax.
More here.

No, it means you're a gullible fool who can't be bothered to check facts.
Your own link states it's more likely to be a hoax.

Yeah right.
The guy who made the claim, Ron Wyatt, is a nutcase.
And, once again: what does it say on the link YOU provide?
Oh wait... Unproven!
More here.

Only if you're uncritically credulous.

 

Mod Note:

I understand people are skeptical of things like this... but I'm going to say this once, and ONCE only...

Keep this shit CIVIL. If all you intend to do is deride or insult or troll, stay out of the thread. There is a reason this sub-forum is here... it's to keep such discussions HOUSED here. It's religion... you aren't likely to get the "hard evidence" that serious skeptics are going to want. We all know that... so continuing to poke and prod and insist that it must be given when you know full well it cannot... that is tantamount to trolling.

You can question and cross-examine all you want... but quit it with the insults!

PS - yes... I'm grumpy

 

I disagree, Kitt, that this qualifies as religion. In antiquity people had no science to inform them of the facts we use today to discern the difference between myth and historical narratives. They adopted the myths on religious grounds and we wouldn't fault them for it. But to act this way today, not only against the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but also by misrepresenting facts (as bearer did in omitting the salient facts from National Geographic) can't be properly be called religious belief. This is nothing short of pure trolling--posting nonsense under the color of religiosity when in fact the remarks are designed to provoke members into chastising the bearer of nonsense.

Let me offer you a suggestion on how to rule on offensive posting. I'm going to suggest you do what courts do. In cases where a religious person sues a church in the civil courts, any issue that falls outside of the jurisdiction of the government (such as whether women can be anointed as priests or ministers) will cause the courts to defer to the laws of the church.

The laws of the religion bearer is propounding here (probably Messianic Judaism) are covered under the Jewish and Christian laws against dishonesty. So, for example, the claim that National Geographic "reported that [someone] was 99% certain Noah's Ark had been found" [paraphrasing] can be ruled as dishonest, simply by reading the next sentence in the article which discounts the claim. That dishonesty violates JudeoChristian precepts, and therefore (following the standards of the courts) would be interpreted as a violation of site policy.

Since you have admitted to holding religious beliefs, you are well situated to judge whether behavior purporting to be religious violates principles of the stated religion. Therefore it would be "just and proper" for you to punish any and all offenders under the site rules, once you make a determination of whether the behavior violates the applicable religious precepts. Just a suggestion.

 

Aqueous - the problem as I see it is that someone looking to discuss their religious views, especially one who is working off of PERSONAL belief as opposed to "academic belief" in the religion, rapidly finds ones self ridiculed and attacked from many angles for doing so. Yes, in this case, the post started as simple preaching - that was addressed.

To be fair, it isn't just in this thread - I have seen it previously in others. A few people, who are exquisitely careful in how they form their arguments, can get away with this apparent hazing... but someone who wants to be simple and honest with their beliefs could quickly find themselves overwhelmed and with a desire to not return to the site... and because religion is considered a "woo-woo" subject here, the person talking about it is at a disadvantage in terms of protections because, really... it's hard to provide "evidence" to back it up since such evidence is not concrete, when it exists at all...

Anywho, I'm not sure if I'm being clear in what I mean or not... at this point, I'm just looking for some civility and rational discussion, rather than heckling and the like... that and, well... as I said above - I'm grumpy ...

like... this grumpy...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think the main problem here, with this particular poster is not his beliefs, nor his lack of evidence.
It's that fact that he's claiming evidence when he demonstrably hasn't got it.
The multiple accusations that the rest us are being unscientific while, at the same time, he's not supporting his arguments with anything more than "This is evidence because I say it's evidence".
(And, that attitude isn't helped at all by the declaration "I am not open to any other explanations other than the Holy Spirit" [sup]1[/sup]).

It's not his beliefs that are the problem, it's the outright hypocrisy.
Either he wants us to look at his "evidence" and treat it as scientists or he doesn't.
Either he's looking for scientific validation for his claims - in which case he should be prepared to accept the consequences of the "examination" of that evidence - or he's not.
What he gives every impression of doing is wanting scientific backing for his beliefs so long as science doesn't actually look at that "evidence".
A case of "I believe, therefore you should agree that science says I'm right".

That's neither rational nor honest.

The discussion itself (and I don't mean the way it's being conducted but rather the premise of it) is neither civil nor rational.
It's a blatant insult to science and the scientific method.

1 In fact I contend that that statement itself is an admission of trolling: he wants "scientific validation" for his claim and he won't accept (or even listen to) ANY explanation except the one he's already decided is correct. He's not here for a discussion.

 

Kitt, this is my personal opinion (not posting as a moderator):
if someone says something that is ridiculous, and persists in doing so after it has been explained to him or her why it is ridiculous, they are inviting ridicule (i.e. it's on themselves.)


ridiculous
adjective
1. causing or worthy of ridicule or derision; absurd; preposterous; laughable
http://dictionary.reference.com/ridiculous

 

In my defense, I have provided photographs of my findings. My claim is that the photographs are of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Bible is a good resource book on the Holy Spirit. So if one is to understand the photographs and my claim, one needs to consult scripture for a description of Him. There is scripture supporting my findings and my claims of the Holy Spirit being in orbital form and bearing witness.

My findings, along with my colleagues findings of Noah's Ark and the Egyptian chariots under the Red Sea, suggest that the Holy Bible is a reliable source of information. I present scripture as a reliable source of information about the truth of the Holy Spirit. In few other books is the Holy Spirit described. So to understand the photographs that I have presented of the Holy Spirit, scripture must be consulted. I understand that there is at lot of confusion in the world about scripture and those photographs. And this makes presenting my case even harder. I am willing to show patience in addressing any concerns to the contrary. I have witnessed some sincere and heart felt comments on this thread and am willing to continue.

Also, a mature and legitimate argument against my claim suggested that the photographs are of photographic anomalies. Although, there are photographic anomalies which are in the shape of an orb, they are not what I speak of in my findings. I have provided ample testimonies of people bearing witness to having seen the orbs with their naked eyes. Many people witnessing the orb in this world believe it to be spiritual in nature. It has been called a spirit orb, angel orb, Ezekiel's wheels and a supernatural orb as well. It is one of the unsolved mysteries of this world. I am here staking claim to having solved that mystery...it is indeed the Holy Spirit.

My findings are important and demonstrate God's presence in the world today.

 

Yet you cannot show that this is so.
As has been pointed out.

Incorrect.
The Bible is good resource book on claims about the "holy spirit".
Neither that book, nor any other, has evidence that such a thing exists.

Your own links do not support the claim the ark OR those chariots have been discovered, therefore your claim that Bible is reliable source of information is wrong.
Further, even IF the ark and chariots HAD been found they would no more support the Biblical claims of "holy spirit" than does the actual existence of 100 Acre Wood or Christopher Robin support the contention that Winnie the Pooh mounted (successfully) an expedition to find the North Pole.
One is physical evidence of a claim about the physical world, the other is a claim about something non-physical which has zero evidence to support it.

And that claim is unsupported.

In other words the only source for the "veracity" of claims about the "holy spirit" is one book - the one that makes those claims in the first place.
A book that has been shown to be faulty on numerous other claims (especially ones that can be checked against other sources/ reality).
There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that any claims it makes that cannot be checked should be taken as factual.

Really?
You'll show patience addressing concerns to the contrary, so long as people end up agreeing with you: I am not open to any other explanations other than the Holy Spirit.
In other words, YOU are not going to listen to "concerns to the contrary" except to refute them (as far as you are able).

None of which constitutes evidence to support your claim.

 

A little context...

 

Which is exactly my point - there is NO hard, concrete evidence that could be provided for such a claim - at best, we can say it is "an unknown"; at worst, it will forever be dismissed as a lens flare, speck of dust, insanity, et al.

All we have for it are the recollections and stories of people who supposedly lived while this was happening - without a way to travel back through time (either literally, or via archaeological discoveries) to verify their statements, we're at a loss on it.

Agreed.

It is in so much as I said above - we don't have the background information to say one way or another if these scriptures are the ramblings of madmen, or people actually walking around talking with the Son of God.

I would pose a question to the community - what, overall, would suffice as ample evidence to prove these claims?

 

It's trickier than that.
Firstly he'd have to show there is such a thing as the "holy spirit" and then work up from there.
Basically there is no way to scientifically validate the claims made.

But, as I have pointed out, that's not the real problem here.
The problem is his own statement: he isn't going to accept ANY answer except the one he's already decided on.
He's not here to discuss, he's here to push his own agenda (regardless of the lack of evidential support) and, presumably, [attempt to] convert others.
And, in pushing this agenda, he's been hypocritical (accusations of us "not being scientific" when he's shown that his knowledge of science is all but non-existent and he has no intention of listening to what science does say on the subject), multiple evasions and even outright duplicity (links purportedly given to support his claim that the Ark and Red Sea chariots have been found when those very same links explicitly state that the claims are unproven [sup]1[/sup]).

1 And then, to compound that duplicity, a repetition of the claim AFTER it was pointed out that the links don't support it.

 

Fair enough points Dywyddyr, and such posts are why he was given his verbal warning. To that end, I ask that things are kept civil - by all involved.

 

Not being deliberately awkward here, but the premise of the thread itself is uncivil.
The thread itself is ENTIRELY about pushing an agenda.
Not only can his argument not be supported but he won't listen - and has declared so - to any view UNLESS it's what he's already decided is the answer.

If it were simply about the unfeasibility if proof that's one thing: civil is/ would be do-able.
But the fact that he will accept ONLY responses that agree with an a priori (and unsupported/ unsupportable) conclusion means, ipso facto, that the thread itself is trolling: he's not here for discussion.

 

I understand what you are saying Dywyddyr - however, if everyone in the conversation remains civil save one person, then that one person can and will be dealt with.
If everyone in the conversation is tossing insults back and forth and generally being an ass, it puts us (the mod team) in an odd spot - we can either go after the instigators, the instigated, the whole, or nobody... and issuing infractions/bans to half a dozen members because they started flaming each other is generally not an appealing conclusion.

Two wrongs don't make a right, savy?

 

Your word against His..and that really sums it up concerning much of what many say here.