Should we call the Holy Spirit "He' instead of "it"?

[Clare73]

Since it is a yes/no question I asked you,

Actually, you made an assertion. . .which was a strawman.

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

I asked you: According to you, would it be wrong—incorrect—to not refer to any day by the word, "Halloween"? Yes or No?

You: <NO ANSWER>

I asked you: According to you, would it be wrong—incorrect—to not refer to 31 October by the word, "Halloween"? Yes or No?

You: <NO ANSWER>

Actually, you made an assertion. . .which was a strawman.

What "assertion" are you asserting I made?

 

[Clare73]

I asked you: According to you, would it be wrong—incorrect—to not refer to any day by the word, "Halloween"? Yes or No?
You: <NO ANSWER>
I asked you: According to you, would it be wrong—incorrect—to not refer to 31 October by the word, "Halloween"? Yes or No?
You: <NO ANSWER>
What "assertion" are you asserting I made?

That would be:

The word, "Halloween"? Did I say that the word, "Halloween," came from Satan? No. I did not.
So, according to you, it would be wrong—incorrect—to not refer to any day by this word, "Halloween"?

You play loose with grammar. . .

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

That would be:

You play loose with grammar. . .

So, regarding what I wrote that you already admitted is a question, you have now changed your story, and told me that, instead of being a question, it is an assertion.

Here is you admitting that the question I asked you is a question, and beneath that, you are lying by telling me you have answered it:

The question:

"So, according to you, it would be wrong—incorrect—to not refer to any day by this word, "Halloween"?

The answer:

Strawman.

And, since you play dumb about grammar, I had re-worded this question for you (even though you already admitted that it is a question) thus, in post #100:

According to you, would it be wrong—incorrect—to not refer to any day by the word, "Halloween"? Yes or No?

And, so far, you've not answered it. Why is that?

 

[Clare73]

I asked you: According to you, would it be wrong—incorrect—to not refer to any day by the word, "Halloween"? Yes or No?
You: <NO ANSWER>
I asked you: According to you, would it be wrong—incorrect—to not refer to 31 October by the word, "Halloween"? Yes or No?
You: <NO ANSWER>
What "assertion" are you asserting I made?

That would be:

The word, "Halloween"? Did I say that the word, "Halloween," came from Satan? No. I did not.
So, according to you, it would be wrong—incorrect—to not refer to any day by this word, "Halloween"?

You play loose with grammar. . .

So, regarding what I wrote that you already admitted is a question, you have now changed your story, and told me that, instead of being a question, it is an assertion.

Here is you admitting that the question I asked you is a question, and beneath that, you are lying by telling me you have answered it:



And, since you play dumb about grammar, I had re-worded this question for you (even though you already admitted that it is a question) thus, in post #100:

According to you, would it be wrong—incorrect—to not refer to any day by the word, "Halloween"? Yes or No?

And, so far, you've not answered it. Why is that?

Non-responsive. . .

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

Non-responsive. . .

See, even you know you've got nothing.

 

[Clare73]

See, even you know you've got nothing.

As in your non-response to my post.

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

Actually, you made an assertion. . .which was a strawman.

BTW, here's what a dictionary says in its entry for "strawman":

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Since you want to accuse me of having "made an assertion...which was a strawman," then by all means, feel free to state the "real argument" that, according to you, I should have tried to defeat, instead of trying to defeat this "strawman" you speak of. Let's hear it; let's hear that "real argument" that you're accusing me of misrepresenting.

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

As in your non-response to my post.

Just like what you had written in your previous post, what you wrote, here, is also not even a sentence. So, your hypocrisy is glaring in saying that I "play loose with grammar".

 

[BNR32FAN]

Face it: Everyone pretends the Holy Spirit is a thing, calling the Third Person of the Trinity "it" - even in churches. Although the Bible does not refer to the Holy Spirit as "He" anywhere, a born person is never called "it" like other animal species, even if the sex is unknown. The Holy Spirit is a PERSON of God.

On the other hand, the Bible says "the Holy Spirit" everywhere. Yes, people say "the baby" and "that kid," etc. But putting "the" in front of "Holy Spirit" implies there is no life in "it."

What do you think?

Actually the Holy Spirit is referred to as He several times in the scriptures.

“I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.”
‭‭John‬ ‭14:16-17‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”
‭‭John‬ ‭14:26‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged. “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.”
‭‭John‬ ‭16:7-15‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'm surprised to hear this. In every church that I've belonged to, the HS has been referred to as "He" or "Him." And I assume that's because this is how he is referred to in the New Testament. See John 14:26, for instance.

Yes and John 16 as well

 

[Clare73]

Just like what you had written in your previous post, what you wrote, here, is also
not even a sentence. So, your hypocrisy is glaring in saying that I "play loose with grammar".

Still non-responsive to the post (#105).

 

[BNR32FAN]

Malay. The word is "ia" or "dia" but they mean the same thing which is a third person singular gender-nutral pronoun. This is the same with words like daughter or son, there is no word to distinguish gender and it's just child.

I think English is going to lean this way too as gender neutral pronouns become more of a demand. It will start in social media where people will take offence to gender pronouns and get picked up in informal and formal writting and to news broadcasts for fear of offending. ect.. until everyone drops he/she.

There was a similar problem with "thou" which is the second person singular in English where using it became out of fashion and the plural "ye" or "you" wasn't as direct and considered more respectful. It was used when addressing a stranger and became popular amoung the more affluent, then everyone just starting using it.

I predict he/she will be replaced in a similar way with "they" and using he/she will start to feel very awkward and too formal.

Pilipino ka ba?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Face it: Everyone pretends the Holy Spirit is a thing, calling the Third Person of the Trinity "it" - even in churches. Although the Bible does not refer to the Holy Spirit as "He" anywhere, a born person is never called "it" like other animal species, even if the sex is unknown. The Holy Spirit is a PERSON of God.

On the other hand, the Bible says "the Holy Spirit" everywhere. Yes, people say "the baby" and "that kid," etc. But putting "the" in front of "Holy Spirit" implies there is no life in "it."

What do you think?

Personally I started ending all my prayers by saying “I love you Father, I love you Jesus, and I love you Holy Spirit in Jesus name I pray amen”. I started doing this about 2 years ago when I realized that I had been neglecting to recognize the Holy Spirit in my prayers.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Where do you find any of that mumbo jumbo in the Bible? It's not in the Bible, so it has nothing to do with Christianity.

It’s a day for honoring the Saints. Many of them are mentioned in the Bible.

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

It’s a day for honoring the Saints. Many of them are mentioned in the Bible.

What do you mean by "honoring the Saints"? And, whatever it is you mean by that, where does the Bible enjoin Christians to set a particular day, such as 1 November, for "honoring the Saints"?

 

[ViaCrucis]

A "Christian" observance of what?

While recognizing the total insincerity with which you are choosing to respond, I'm still going to answer your post.

The Feast of All Saints is a day set aside on the Western Christian Calendar in which we honor the whole host of the saints who have come before us.

Memorials of the deaths of saints (especially martyrs) has been Christian practice since the earliest years of the Christian Church. Such saints' days remembered the day of their death because it was perceived as a kind of "birthday in heaven"; because even in death there is life for those who are in Christ Jesus. As the Lord Himself said in John 11:25-26.

Prior to the 9th century the usual time set aside for such an observance was most often in May or June and associated with the Season of Pentecost. The Eastern Churches still follow this practice, with the Sunday of All Saints occurring on the first Sunday after Pentecost. In the 9th century the Pope moved the celebration of All Saints to a fixed date, November 1st, to commemorate what had become the popular practice in Rome already (going back a century or so earlier). And since then the Western Church has continued to observe All Saints on November 1st, both Catholic and Protestant.

On the Lutheran Calendar specifically, October 31st has special significance as Reformation Day, as such Reformation Day tends to take precedence in Lutheran practice over Halloween, but we do still observe All Saints Day.

Where do you find any of that mumbo jumbo in the Bible? It's not in the Bible, so it has nothing to do with Christianity.

Then I'm sure you'd be willing to show where "if it's not in the Bible it has nothing to do with Christianity" is found in the Bible itself. Otherwise you are, using your own reasoning, speaking "mumbo jumbo".

I look forward to you quoting 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21-22, and quite possibly Revelation 22:18-19 at me and thinking that wins the argument.

There's nothing wrong with dressing up like devils and devil-worshipers and pretending to threaten mischief against those who do not give you something you demand they give you gratis?

Are you scared of four year old children dressed as pirates and princesses bullying candy from you? What even is this comment?

No; it is like calling people "superstitious rubes" for going on dates on February 14 when they are motivated to do so by the fact that the superstitious rubes call February 14 "the Feast Day of St. Valentine".

Just wait until you learn that some people celebrate wedding anniversaries and birthdays.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DamianWarS]

Pilipino ka ba?

no

 

[RDKirk]

So...where are we in this debate?

Are we calling the Holy Spirit a person or a thing now?

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

The Feast of All Saints is a day set aside

Set aside by whom? Set aside by God? Set aside in pursuance of a command by God?

on the Western Christian Calendar in which we honor the whole host of the saints who have come before us.

Of what does this "honoring the whole host of the saints who have come before us" consist? Please tell us exactly what (if anything) you mean by that. What are you accomplishing, or effecting, by doing whatever it is you call "honoring...the saints..." on a certain day you have "set aside"? Please tell us, also: Is everybody under a moral obligation to do whatever it is you call "honoring the saints," and that on certain days you declare to be "set aside"? Tell us where, in the Bible, we are commanded to do whatever that is.

Memorials of the deaths of saints (especially martyrs) has been Christian practice since the earliest years of the Christian Church. Such saints' days remembered the day of their death because it was perceived as a kind of "birthday in heaven"; because even in death there is life for those who are in Christ Jesus. As the Lord Himself said in John 11:25-26.

So, ALL saints died on 1 November?

Prior to the 9th century the usual time set aside

Set aside by whom?

In the 9th century the Pope moved the celebration of All Saints to a fixed date, November 1st, to commemorate what had become the popular practice in Rome already (going back a century or so earlier). And since then the Western Church has continued to observe All Saints on November 1st, both Catholic and Protestant.

And obedience to the Papacy's decrees is taught where in the Bible? Does the Papacy set aside a day to honor the many Christians they have murdered down through the centuries?

On the Lutheran Calendar specifically, October 31st has special significance as Reformation Day, as such Reformation Day tends to take precedence in Lutheran practice over Halloween, but we do still observe All Saints Day.

Who authorizes you to shortchange Halloween in favor of Reformation Day? Of the two, which does God prefer you "observe"? Reformation Day or Halloween?

Then I'm sure you'd be willing to show where "if it's not in the Bible it has nothing to do with Christianity" is found in the Bible itself.

Oh, and if nobody can cause you, against your will, to believe that it is so, then we are obligated to obey your extra-Biblical decrees? Nice try. In any case, since there are those of us who do believe that it is so, it is thus incumbent on you to show where, in the Bible, you imagine you have found commands and directions to all this so-called "Christian holiday" business you demand everyone obey.

Are you scared of four year old children dressed as pirates and princesses bullying candy from you?

Does that happen to people? Does that happen to you? That's never happened to me, and I do not imagine it could happen. Now, answer the question I asked you, which you are trying to weasel out of by your silly reaction to it:

Is there nothing wrong with dressing up like devils and devil-worshipers and pretending to threaten mischief against those who do not give you something you demand they give you gratis? YES or NO?

Just wait until you learn that some people celebrate wedding anniversaries and birthdays.

Just wait until you learn that what you just wrote is irrelevant to anything I've said, here.