Holy spirit

then why do we exist? Was God not enough?

Live for eternity, alone, and see if you wouldn't make friends too.

spirit means breath, it goes in and out, it goes deep and shallow, it goes fast and it goes slow (like your mum does)

sit and pay attention to it, feel it, listen to it...then ask
who is it that is paying attention to this breath
who is it that is feeling the breath
who is it the is listening to the breath
search for this who behind the witness of breathing
who is it that is searching for the who behind the witness of breathing

who is it that breathes for us all?

I didn't know I am friend with God. Good to know.

We exist just to be.

>Galatians 5:22-23: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

I've seen the Stoic god as a description of the third member of the trinity. The Aristotelian god as the second and the Platonic god as the first.

Whats interesting is that I've also seen the Holy Spirit being identified as the Atman in Hinduism. Which is a "universal manifestation of the universal consciousness" like the nous which is related to the pneuma (combination of air and fire) of the greeks.

in essence I think that an action from the will of the holy spirit is "whole" action. Acting in perfect harmony with the universe, in whole truth. And a character which develops from whole action is one which is participating in the logos. The spirit leads one to wholeness, to at-one-ment with christ in the language of the christians.

bunch of fairy stories

A relic from early Christianity. Esoteric sects had influential clout and as such got a seat at the First Council of Nicaea. They'd later get wiped out by more mainstream Christian views and took their esoteric knowledge to their graves leaving "The Holy Spirit" as the third wheel of the trinity.

>it sounds so sanitized.

Its literally the word every other language uses you retarded redditor

Literally not an explanation, just an unrelated factual observation

It's a bastardization of the vedic brahmān, the impersonal aspect of god. Just like christ is a bastardization of kristo, which is a bastardization of Krsna

>What's it even?
The Holy Spirit is God qua inspirator: it speaks through the prophets and animates the presence of God on Earth.

>Why must it be separated from God?
It's not, the Holy Spirit is God. It is distinct from God's other two persons, and willingly subordinates itself, like the Son, to the Father.

>willingly
How do you know? What is even the basis for it doing anything willingly or consciously, rather than just being an Inanimate manifestation of God's will

The Holy Spirit isn't a manifestation of God, if that's supposed to mean something distinct from God. It is God.

I said manifestation of God's will, and you didn't answer my question but instead reiterated your viewpoint. The Holy spirit can be likened to a metaphysical construct which is present when I exert my will upon the world, so when I tell someone to say or do something, or say or do something myself; it can bridge the gap between my action and the change in the world - but it seems completely to be unnecessary

The Holy Spirit is God.
It is separate from the other two persons of the trinity.
The trinity is the detailing of there being three relations within the non-composite God, each with its own definable personality, hence "three persons in one god".
A good parallel would be St. Augustine's:

>The Father = The Mind
>The Son = Self-Knowledge
>The Holy Spirit = Self-Love

For mind, its self-knowledge and self-love and all co-extensive, co-equal, and consubstantial. Yet they proceed from the mind.

I can answers questions if people have it.

I'm pretty sure other languages use their own words you moron

constantine has alot to answer for

It's funny how everyone has a different definition for it.

What's the significance of the fioloque and why are ortholarpers butthurt about it?

Originally it was just the active part of God acting through us but then the autistic Platonists got hold of it and turned it into a person of its own.

it's a spook :^)

>It is God.

It's proper to use "he" when talking about the Holy Spirit. He is one of the three persons of God. He is God. Calling Him "it" probably contributes to people misunderstanding Him as some kind of force that God the Father projects. Your posts seem good otherwise.

For the filioque, it is entirely accurate to note that the filioque was not introduced with the original Nicene Creed in the First Council of Constantinople. Further, it is also accurate to state that in the Council of Ephesus that it was ruled to not create new creeds. This was not a doctrinal ruling but one about church practices, which are often overturned for newer rulings on church practices in later councils. And, hell, additions that Orthodoxy accepts came about at the Council of Nicea and others as well.

However, while it is not against church teaching to change the creed itself, the key charge is that the filioque is theological innovation, but I'd say this is more focused on the use of "and".

Scripture reveals that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The external relationships of the persons of the Trinity mirror their internal relationships. Just as the Father externally sent the Son into the world in time, the Son internally proceeds from the Father in the Trinity. Just as the Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), he internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20). However Orthodox people understand the "and" to mean it has dual origins when Catholics would more accurately say it proceeds from the Father and THROUGH the Son. The Orthodox would ultimately agree with this too but think Catholics are speaking of dual origins or at least are causing innovation, invalidating the Catholics as legitimate.

The Orthodox Church leaves much a mystery and doesn't clarify much authoritatively. Hence they tend to picture Catholics' clarification as innovation (and something claiming eternal truth doesn't innovate).

I have quotations of Greek and Roman early church people defending the "through the son" position if it would interest you.

>he internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity
>The Orthodox would ultimately agree with this too

The Orthodox would not agree with the Spirit proceeding from both Father and Son within the Trinity.

I said the Orthodox would agree on proceed from the Father and through the Son, not a claim of dual origin.

The old Latin "it's all a wacky misunderstanding" trick.
>Orthodox, my friend, the filioque doesn't imply that we Roman Catholics believe in an eternal dual-procession of the Spirit.
>So you see, it is not an innovation, merely a clarification.
>Also, we believe in an eternal dual-procession of the Spirit.

>the filioque doesn't imply that we Roman Catholics believe in an eternal dual-procession of the Spirit.
This is not what it's saying at all, do not put words in my mouth. There is an eternal dual procession. It is from the father and through the son rather than being understood as dual origins.

Just having some fun, not trying to put words into your mouth. Let me see if I can put it into my own words.

1. With respect to God's working salvation in the world, the Son sends the Holy Spirit from the Father.

Both Roman Catholics and Orthodox believe this.

2a. With respect to the divine nature, the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son.

Roman Catholic belief

2b. With respect to the divine nature, the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone.

Orthodox belief
-----------
Do you think that's a fair summary?

>1
Accurate.
>2 and 3
Accurate but doesn't touch on the nuanced understanding of "and the Son" that Catholics have so I can't say it's a full understanding.

Sorry for the late response.