“Whether the Holy Spirit is impersonal or Personal is meaningless?”
Where did I EVER SAY THAT? I said this: “What it convinces you of is meaningless.” Do you see what is referred to as meaningless there? “WHAT IT CONVINCES YOU OF IS MEANINGLESS.” Do you see that now?
That was in regard to YOUR STATEMENT: “#1...The Holy Spirit is not an impersonal “it”...and your reductionism to that level basically convinces me you don’t even know Him!!!”
Now, are you going to deal with what I ACTUALLY SAID or are you going to make up things I never said and suggest I said them?
“Sorry, stay focused if you’re going to enter a conversation addressing a specific target:”
What an incredible statement - and terribly hypocritical - considering you just made something up I never said and suggested I said it.
“You didn’t come out talkin’ ‘bout Mary;”
REALLY? Here is what I wrote: “Yes, but it doesn’t physically gestate within us as a child. Thus, Mary is the mother of God because Jesus is God and she gave birth to Him.”
Did you see the word “Thus”? Do you know what that means? My SECOND SENTENCE in the thread mentions Mary and “Thus” indicates the second sentence’s content is directly related to the content of the first. So don’t now tell me some nonsense like “You didn’t come out talkin’ ‘bout Mary;”
Seriously, why are making things up?
“It wasn’t meant to be a molecule-for-molecule perfect analogy!”
Your analogy wasn’t even an analogy of kind. It fails as an analogy. All analogies have limits but yours is completely unworkable.
“(You would be the type to take issue with Jesus parables or hyperboles, and would get wrapped up in lecturing Jesus that a camel just wouldn’t be able to physically trudge molecule-for-molecule thru the eye of a needle!)”
Actually, no. I can see why you would make something up like that since that’s what you’ve been doing so much of lately, however.
“(Except His mystical body is made up of physical people.”
But the defining aspect of our sharing in the mystical body is our soul, not our body. That is how we remain in the mystical body even after the death of our physical body while we await the resurrection. Surely that has occurred to you before hasn’t it?
“So I guess given what you’ve said in the post, I have to remind you that this “mystical body” is stretch with billions & billions & billions of molecules!)”
Actually souls have no molecules. And even though we are talking about people with bodies your point is meaningless since Jesus’ physical body does not change (we do not add to it in any way) and His mystical body has no mass or volume precisely because IT IS MYSTICAL.
You said in post #9: The problem with your analogy is that it is no analogy at all. We are not talking about “tri” aspects of Mary for there are none.
My analogy wasn't primarily a response in post #7 to Mary. So why did you make it that? Why would you even expect that, given what you wrote in post #7?
In post 7, this was the order of what you talked about:
a. "it" (Holy Spirit)
b. comparison to a gestated child (also internal)
c. Mary as mother
d. Jesus as (preborn/born) child
e. Holy Spirit (& whether He's been) carried by a woman
f. the womb (also internal)
So, in your 48 words in post #7, you essentially address these six subjects -- all of which (except c.) focus on the internal: a child in gestation, a child's preborn place of residency (womb), a child to be born & is born, the one being carried by a woman, and two references to the indweller (Holy Spirit). In contrast to that, only ONE reference to Mary.
So then because you didn't recognize that my analogy was geared to that Indweller, you suddenly thought I should have responded to your single Mary reference & would have ignored most of what you said!
Come on now. If somebody's 83.4% of their mere 48-word 3 sentences zero in on the child, the internal dimension, the Indweller, & then you complain how the analogy doesn't fit the "Mom" -- your 16.6% of the subject matter -- & then when that's all pointed out to you, you fall back on, "Whaddya mean I didn't talk about Mary? She's right there in the second sentence?" As if a single reference would trump 2 references to the Indweller, a gestated child, a baby being carried, a baby's place of residency (womb), & Jesus as preborn/born child?
And I have to spend all this time explaining to you what you somehow have seemingly forgotten (or choose to ignore) what you wrote? Are you kidding me?
Between these statements ... along with how you think you can reference the Holy Spirit as an "it" and then, when called on that, just slide right on by with an "oh, what does that matter? type of comment in post #9: "What it convinces you of is meaningless. My point still stands." essentially sizes up your weasel approach to conversations.