The gifts from the Holy Spirit

Which are these miraculous events which occur among enthusiasts converted, particularly during meetings, like the "speech in tongues", the "gift of interpretation of tongues", the "songs in tongues", the "gift of prophecy", the healings, and sometimes also various visions, hearings, inspirations or other meetings with God or Christ? The Christians say: they are the "gifts of the Holy Spirit", manifestations of the direct intervention of the Spirit of God in our lives, or possibly of the Christ or an angel of God.

"Spiritual" benedictions

Christians have the mania to consider as from God all the good that happens, and to find him all excuses (tests, devil...) for all evil that happens. And even if it was true: no matter how much good happens to them, they are not even able to act effectively to improve the world and to avoid all these problems for which they tire this god to ask him assistance, that only they receive. Normal, this God does not guide them so for fear of unemployment.

The true durable solutions to the needs have nothing to do with that: they are political and technological. Do you ask for sensational miracles, or answers to the needs ? Do you want to keep needs which only God can fulfil, only for the sport to depend on Him ?

The fields of competence of the Holy Spirit

These miracles of the Holy Spirit are far from reflecting the so mentionned omnipotence and omniscience of God they are suppose to come from. Indeed, the study of the various miracles reported by Christians that mean to testify the intervention of God in their life, actually shows that the fields of competence of the Holy Spirit are approximately limited to the following categories:

The guignolery which manages to be taken for something very serious, as what in other circumstances is usually called a hoax. The speech in tongues, undoubtedly the widest spread gift of the Holy Spirit, is particularly clear in this direction;
Doctrinal harping, also sterile since it does not teach us anything more. So is generally what is called the "gift of prophecy";
Medicine, in the form of spiritual healings in particular. Finally something apparently serious. Only sorry that it so seldom arrives, and in a rather random way depending on circumstances having nothing to do with any specific spiritual values. Probably this is the deed of spirits which pass by there, stationing in a place and curing the people who come there, or accompanying some particular people...

Influences of the devil

However there are other supernatural phenomena involving spirits of beyond, like hypnosis, clairvoyance, the dowsing, the healings by laying on of hands and handling of flows of vital energy or other forms of occultism and rituals of "possessions" of various old traditions. What do the Christians say of that ? That they are invocations of the demons, and that to call upon them and to be possessed by them is a way of selling one's soul to the devil, something rigorously prohibited in front of God.

What difference?

But, what difference is there between the interventions of God and the demons ? Christians teach to well distinguish them by the following criterion: the spirits who proclaim Jesus as Savior and Lord are of God. Those who do not recognize Him but would like to divert us from Him are of Satan. How, is this really a difference? One could take any other doctrines and call of God the spirits who preach it, and of the devil those who say another thing. All would appear finally in a similar way. One can see other differences there. Admittedly, and then? There is a diversity of experiences with the spirits of beyond, like there are a diversity of these spirits, and a diversity of the experiences of life in general.

Does that bear positive fruits? Of course, as it can also happen to hypnosis or other forms of relationship to the occult spirits to bear positive fruits. Why would it be necessary that any form of possession is a purely malefic thing? Christianity sees the spirits of beyond as being inevitably either completely white and servants of God, or completely blacks and servants of the devil, but why that? Can't the occult spirits be free like you and me, and want to have fun from time to time with us, while bringing some benefits to us and making us swallow some twaddles ? Considering all the people who could die under various conditions and with various personalities and their various senses of humour, why would not there be a package of jokers which trail, for not having decided to go up to heaven, and with some desire for teasing men? Of course, they know that to be able to continue the party they must at least sometimes do things well, or at least to look like doing so.

Do you believe that the spirits not sent of God want to necessarily divert men from the Gospel because they want to lose men? For what, to lose men, whereas it is only about laughing a little? In any way, the Gospel does not have, contrary to its assertions, any major spiritual value, so it is kif-kif-kif. It is funnier to show white leg while being taken for the Holy Spirit by Christians, that makes it possible to have the party last longer. For the same reason, why should necessarily God protect Christians against any influence from spirits not having the light of God, in the name of their faith in this meaningless Gospel which is not better than anyting else ? Eh what, do you wonder which can be the motivation of these spirits to maintain the relations with Christians? Do they only seek to have fun, or have deeper motivations? Are they good, bad or different motivations?

Proposal for an explanation by the universalization of the sense of Christian life.

In fact, there is a very logical possible explanation to all that. The point here is not to affirm that the following explanation is necessarily the truth, but to notice that it is naturally at least one possible rational explanation to these miracles, explanation which has the double advantage of being completely natural and to make us think on the meaning (and the nonsense) of Christianity. That is thus enough to refute the implicit assumption generally used by the Christian speech, whereby the miracles which occur among them would be in themselves a reasonable evidence of the veracity of their doctrines. Hereit is:

What can happen when an enthusiastic Christian firmly rooted in biblical faith dies, and that appears to him the light of God who tries to explain him that all his biblical faith was useless because the Bible comes from men and that there is nothing like a need of repurchase of sins in Jesus-Christ?

Let us imagine that then, he holds on the fidelity to his faith in Christ, that does not allow him to follow any other light than that of the Christ or who claims itself of His flag. He will thus reject any light which would disavow the Gospel and would try to make him lose the faith in Christ, as not being God. Thus refusing to go up towards the light of God since it is not linked to Christ, his spirit will remain on the Earth. But, what the heck could he do on the Earth, if not continue to follow the mission to which he had already chosen to devote its life: to preach the Gospel of Christ to all the nations of the Earth. As he always did all his life, he will not seek to check by other means whether is really the will of God, because the faith is enough for him to know that it is so. He will always seek to develop this faith, in goal of pleasing his God. Of all his terrestrial life he continuously trained to believe that his mission wanted by God was to preach the Gospel, without caring of the fuss to check by other means if that were true or not. Once on other side, after finally becoming a pure spirit freed from the influence of the flesh, there is no reason why he would suddenly disavow this step that he had always estimated as the expression of the highest divine spirituality: as he always did, he will preach the Gospel by all the means, honest or not, because the main point for him is not to analyze and follow the truth scrupulously, but to save hearts by bringing them to the faith in Jesus, but the faith occurs by means of conviction, and for this reason all the blows are allowed.
Of course, he may have troubles to completely follow on other side such a step by the force of his own faith, but that is neither new: he will certainly need some pastors to encourage him in this way (possibly which can be present themselves as Christ, or more easily as an apostle of Christ, possibly after a scene with an alleged Christ), but that should not be difficult to find. In any way, who else could he go to ? If he did not engage himself in this way, his existence would lose all significance. And the loss of significance of his existence is what he fears most in life.

A magic vision of human thought

Christians have the mania to interpret all and anything as falling miraculously from the sky, and in particular the human thought as a simple puppet in the hands of a miraculous and incomprehensible bunch of magic influences by powers above it, and of which we do not know anything: freedom, sin, the will of God, of the devil and the Holy Spirit, whose respective roles escape all analyses. It is for them the ultimate explanation of everything, which exempts them from seeking to understand anything more precisely: it is obvious, they are the unsoundable mysteries of God; thus there is nothing more to understand of it. Thus the Christian should blindly claim his testimony without seeking to understand the other nor why he (the other) does not believe in it, because he (the christian) estimates that it is only the business of human freedom and of the work of the Holy Spirit which he is not responsible for. If a non-Christian as me clearly understood that Christianity is only one large mistake, and tries to confront his point of view with a Christian, the latter does not even seek to understand and to discuss it, because:

1) He is ready to see systematically an influence of the devil even when one tries to testify that all is natural and even very rational: "the adversary in your head shows you...". Here is the Christian mania to allot supernatural explanations to all that does not confirm their sights. But actually I clearly see from now on, thousand times more lucidly, honestly and with the obviousness of the truth than when I was Christian. What I know, I do not invent it and nobody persuades me. I know what I see and which is of a manifest clearness, that proves itself in a way that no fraud will ever be able to produce. It is too easy for the Christians as for anyone to believe that he has the ultimate truth, by "explaining" every contrary thought in the others as being of diabolic inspiration. Simple definition: the thought of God is mine; that of the others when it is contrary to mine, is a diabolic hallucination; thus I am right and those who do not agree with me are the insane people handled by the devil, no matter what. Here is the point reached by some. But if the devil could thus make one mistake things in a way which appears under the aspect of such an evidence, then the Bible may be right to say that the Earth is flat because it is only the devil who persuades us of something else. But then it would be even more miraculous that, contrary to others, Christians escape the collective hallucination. But, without trying to believe anything a priori on this subject, I acknowledge that the proclamation of such nonsenses on behalf of Christians was almost able to convince me of the existence of such a manipulator devil as the only possible explanation to this spectacle that they offer me to contemplate, of their quasi voluntary blindness and their ridiculous proclamations of monumental nonsenses which they proclaim with such a balance in the name of the revelation of the Holy Spirit that they received.

2) "What is the use of examining the question? since my words will not have any impact on you, except the power of Jesus when it appears to you ". The Christian sees any discussion as vain. How odd a conception of the human thought. Thought which without the light of Christ can be easily planted at the point to estimate to know clear evidence and proclamations of false things arbitrary. In particular, evidence that the Bible is only a ridiculous human manufactured work and not a word of God; evidence that man decends from the monkey whereas according to the Bible he was directly created by God (some Christians even say that the common sense of children testifies with them that the idea that the man descends from the monkey would be ridiculous: "the man descends from the monkey and the monkey goes down from the tree"); some scorn the evidence that the Earth is billion years old whereas according to the Bible it would be in reality only 6000 years old; a few centuries ago, the evidence that the Earth turns around the sun; still earlier, the evidence that it is round whereas the Bible describes it as flat. "False" evidence, whose falseness would be obvious by the grace of the Holy Spirit to the Christians without requiring any examination, but without inspiring any argument able to dispute this "false" evidence successfully. If it were the testimony of the Christians illuminated by God, maybe. But here again they generalize wrongly.

Christians may claim to know nothing of what human thought depends on. But if they claim so to know nothing of why does someone else think what he thinks, whereas that person knows for it a precise reason, are they right against him to claim that it is the pure divine and incomprehensible mystery ? If I see my thought and that of the Christians (of which I was) as an explicit and comprehensible human mechanism whereas they perceive it as a bunch of supernatural and incomprehensible influences, who of us is enlightened of the highest lights of divine knowledge?

Power of conviction

But let us continue: refusing the discussion, that person "prefers to receive one day the power of the Holy Spirit, like acts 1/8 to be more effective in testimony for his glory." Well, wasn't it already received ? What was the testimony about then ? Now the question is about power and effectiveness. Here again is a proof that the work happens on the ground of dishonesty. The one who is honest works to say true things, not "powerful" and effective things. It is naturally effective by the natural effectiveness of the truth to be imparable; not artificially by the operation of the Holy Spirit. If it proves that he does not say true things, he recognizes his error and corrects himself. If he said true things without being convincing, he always has the chance of justifying them afterwards because he knows why they were true and can always answer criticisms. The one who cannot justify what he says when he is criticized, does not know why what he says is true. He is thus in the doubt and does not have anything to claim but everything to learn. Or then he could at least have the decency to defend the idea that these ideas were not inevitably false, if he sees a possibility. If he does not see anything of all that, it is that it is clear for him that he was wrong or at least that he did not know (but who has nothing to say should shut up). Then, not to acknowledge it is the sign that he does not want to face the truth. If he is right but cannot convince the other because the other is blind, then (contrary to what took place) he will approve the publication of the dialogue so that the blindness of the other (or his own) is manifest to all: the others will be able to notice the origin of the dissension and thus better to make their own conclusions.
But if as what happened he speaks in terms of effectiveness of persuasion (the power of testimony received from the Holy Spirit), it is the proof that he threw away all care for the truth, for the profit of the subjectivity of the sensational and the magic of errors. Moreover he gives up to his God the care to know what persuades or does not persuade, which shows that he refuses to understand the reasons of that, he is locked up in his blindness. He wants to output remarks according to what can persuade the other as lies are output according to what can best induce in error one's interlocutor. It does not interest him to know what is true or not in itself, nor to even understand how his interlocutor thinks. Actually, he only seeks to blindly impose his thoughts on others, without any sense of dialogue. The oiling he wants to receive is the one which will make him the spokesman of the lying spirits which are in the airs.
Or eventually I could understand the preoccupation for a persuasion if it were about speaking to completely stunned beings and irrational incompetents, unable to distinguish the truth when it is said, but who it would be nevertheless necessary to convince (ungrateful task to try to inculcate the truth to insane people !). But this expresses the little consideration which they address to their not-Christian interlocutors and their independence of judgment.

In any case, if you want to address yourselves to me, you should know that I can very well distinguish the truth, it is thus according to the truth that you should speak to me. Not according to a power of persuasion. But if there is somebody who, as you say, has the power to persuade me, let him write to me, in the condition that I can publish the dialogue. Hoping that the supposedly holy spirit which will animate him will not have the insanity to make me waste my time up to make me struggle against so-called Christian positions that "true Christians" will repudiate then to accuse me to animate a false debate. Besides that, I think that that will not happen because it is impossible to lie and persuade (or at least to be held honourably in front of the public) someone who knows.

Conclusion

Yes, I know, this kind of explanations is called by the Bible a "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit", which will never be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the other. Still a blackmail to dissuade people to exert a critical reflexion, as usual.

Back to the Christianity page
Back to homepage