The Problem of the Holy Spirit

[Nakosis]

In the face of battling cancer an internal locus of control is symptomatic of people who take ownership of their treatment. It is up to them, the patient, to take charge of the treatment. This internal locus of control predicts patient engagement and involvement. These patients are not passive. They are active in getting answers, seeking information, soliciting second opinions, and generally expecting excellence from their doctors. They take nothing for granted. Getting well is, after all, up to them. An internal locus of control.

Patients with external locus of control tend to be much more passive. It's up to the doctor--the Powerful Other--to fix them. These patients don't push back. They are docile. They don't seek second opinions or educate themselves. And such behavior predicts a worse outcome...

...So how does all this relate to the Holy Spirit?

Well think about it. If relying on a Powerful Other (think: Holy Spirit) is generally bad in the face of life trouble, then what does this have to say about leaning on God? Is leaning on God, psychologically, a bad thing to do? Does it keep us passive?

By contrast, an internal locus of control has been found to be, generally speaking, a good thing. But within the Christian tradition isn't leaning upon yourself considered to be a bad thing, even a sin?
Experimental Theology: The Psychology of Christianity: Part 12, The Holy Spirit and Locus of Control

The reliance on external forces tends to put a person a passive role. "It is up to God", "It is up to fate".

Vs it is up to me to inform myself and make the best choices so the outcome I desire is achieved.
Making the choice to become informed so one can make better choice for themselves.

As an atheist, there is no one else to rely on other than yourself. One is forced to accept responsibility for their future.

Does religion teach one to be passive to supernatural forces?
Or does religion teach one to take control of their own fate?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Religion teaches us to seel God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In the face of battling cancer an internal locus of control is symptomatic of people who take ownership of their treatment. It is up to them, the patient, to take charge of the treatment. This internal locus of control predicts patient engagement and involvement. These patients are not passive. They are active in getting answers, seeking information, soliciting second opinions, and generally expecting excellence from their doctors. They take nothing for granted. Getting well is, after all, up to them. An internal locus of control.

Patients with external locus of control tend to be much more passive. It's up to the doctor--the Powerful Other--to fix them. These patients don't push back. They are docile. They don't seek second opinions or educate themselves. And such behavior predicts a worse outcome...

...So how does all this relate to the Holy Spirit?

Well think about it. If relying on a Powerful Other (think: Holy Spirit) is generally bad in the face of life trouble, then what does this have to say about leaning on God? Is leaning on God, psychologically, a bad thing to do? Does it keep us passive?

By contrast, an internal locus of control has been found to be, generally speaking, a good thing. But within the Christian tradition isn't leaning upon yourself considered to be a bad thing, even a sin?
Experimental Theology: The Psychology of Christianity: Part 12, The Holy Spirit and Locus of Control

The reliance on external forces tends to put a person a passive role. "It is up to God", "It is up to fate".

Vs it is up to me to inform myself and make the best choices so the outcome I desire is achieved.
Making the choice to become informed so one can make better choice for themselves.

As an atheist, there is no one else to rely on other than yourself. One is forced to accept responsibility for their future.

Does religion teach one to be passive to supernatural forces?
Or does religion teach one to take control of their own fate?

Well, there is always the short version of the serenity prayer. I used in its core form without God and it still works.

 

[Ella S.]

it is up to me to inform myself and make the best choices so the outcome I desire is achieved.

Nothing you try to do can guarantee the outcome you desire.

In this context, I have to side with those who have faith in God, because they at least realize that they can't control the world.

My advice to those who can't suspend their disbelief enough to be comforted by the notion of God is to let go of desire and accept whatever happens unconditionally. The world around you isn't going to bend to your will.

 

[Viker]

Does religion teach one to be passive to supernatural forces?

Mine, one must become active among these forces. One must assert themselves (careful not to be aggressive) among them. Making demands/commands either won't work or will, just not in a pleasant way one trying to "command" or order around the daemonic divine had hoped for.

Or does religion teach one to take control of their own fate?

Mine again, one must begin acting as their own ruler, deity, etc. taking charge and full responsibility over their own life.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

You can believe in God but not a personalized one. You can believe in higher forces that are both there to protect and kill you. There are a million ways to die, and while I agree with you that you need to take responsibility for yourself, sometimes its not really up to you whether you live or die. All prayers do is help the person praying from an uncomfortable situation, I grant you. But entropy has to take over sometimes. That is all.

 

[Nakosis]

Nothing you try to do can guarantee the outcome you desire.

In this context, I have to side with those who have faith in God, because they at least realize that they can't control the world.

My advice to those who can't suspend their disbelief enough to be comforted by the notion of God is to let go of desire and accept whatever happens unconditionally. The world around you isn't going to bend to your will.

Isn't that the idea is some beliefs, to surrender their life to God?
Certainly it can be comforting to let go of the responsibility for one's life. "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven".

The question is, which predicts a better future. One were you have faith that God will take care of you or one where you take responsibility to gather information related to your situation so you can make informed decisions?

Either way, life continues, events happen, good or bad and we deal with the results.
However, have you not heard this prayer?

Father, give us courage to change what must be altered, serenity to accept what cannot be helped, and the insight to know the one from the other.

There are aspects of the world we can control. Act upon. Wouldn't it be better to know how best to act on those aspects of our world we can control?

Or is "insight" something you have to wait for God to provide?
To be inspired? to Feel the call to act?

 

[74x12]

In the face of battling cancer an internal locus of control is symptomatic of people who take ownership of their treatment. It is up to them, the patient, to take charge of the treatment. This internal locus of control predicts patient engagement and involvement. These patients are not passive. They are active in getting answers, seeking information, soliciting second opinions, and generally expecting excellence from their doctors. They take nothing for granted. Getting well is, after all, up to them. An internal locus of control.

Patients with external locus of control tend to be much more passive. It's up to the doctor--the Powerful Other--to fix them. These patients don't push back. They are docile. They don't seek second opinions or educate themselves. And such behavior predicts a worse outcome...

...So how does all this relate to the Holy Spirit?

Well think about it. If relying on a Powerful Other (think: Holy Spirit) is generally bad in the face of life trouble, then what does this have to say about leaning on God? Is leaning on God, psychologically, a bad thing to do? Does it keep us passive?

By contrast, an internal locus of control has been found to be, generally speaking, a good thing. But within the Christian tradition isn't leaning upon yourself considered to be a bad thing, even a sin?
Experimental Theology: The Psychology of Christianity: Part 12, The Holy Spirit and Locus of Control

The reliance on external forces tends to put a person a passive role. "It is up to God", "It is up to fate".

Vs it is up to me to inform myself and make the best choices so the outcome I desire is achieved.
Making the choice to become informed so one can make better choice for themselves.

As an atheist, there is no one else to rely on other than yourself. One is forced to accept responsibility for their future.

Does religion teach one to be passive to supernatural forces?
Or does religion teach one to take control of their own fate?

When God gives the holy Spirit he expects a return on his investment.

Notice in the parable of the servants given talents(money) the one the master is angry with is the one who buried his share of the money in the dirt and did nothing with it. He thought keeping it was enough but the master wanted profit if only the interest.

Because God has given something precious and the least people can do is to let the holy Spirit be fruitful in themselves. The fruit of the Spirit is the profit God wants to see.

Adam was made from the dust of the ground. Dirt is symbolic of the flesh and worthlessness. If you bury the holy Spirit that means you're following after the flesh and not after the Spirit. So of course the Spirit remains unfruitful for so long as you remain sinful.
Whatever you bury is in a sense symbolically dead. We bury the dead. The scripture says to crucify the flesh and live after the Spirit. If you revive the flesh(We're all made of dirt) then it will bury the Spirit itself and stop up it's flow in your life and heart. Since the holy Spirit is like a well of water inside then dirt can block it over and deny access.

This does take some effort and vigilance rather than passivity.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Or does religion teach one to take control of their own fate?

God teaches us to use both.

Medicine based on good science, using where possible good natural medicine and hot and cold waters, all backed with Prayer.

No prayer will cut our cancer, nor sow back on an arm. But the power of prayer can aid in the healing process, the power of positive thought and actions.

Regards Tony

 

[paradox]

The reliance on external forces tends to put a person a passive role. "It is up to God", "It is up to fate".

Does religion teach one to be passive to supernatural forces?
Or does religion teach one to take control of their own fate?

I don't know about other religions but according to my belief you put faith in both the doctor and holy spirit.
There is a verse that says Kings would not be Kings if not given that power by God.
and also a verse which says to obey kings.
Therefore if obeying a king is commandment so is obeying a doctor, like king is above you so is the doctor above your sickness.
This doesn't therefore mean I have to give up on reason, a doctor may not be faithful at all.

 

[stvdv]

Well think about it. If relying on a Powerful Other (think: Holy Spirit) is generally bad in the face of life trouble, then what does this have to say about leaning on God? Is leaning on God, psychologically, a bad thing to do? Does it keep us passive

Depends which Master you follow

Sai Baba's Teachings solve all these questions relating to God and Holy Spirit being problematic

So, I don't have such thoughts and questions

 

[Ella S.]

Isn't that the idea is some beliefs, to surrender their life to God?
Certainly it can be comforting to let go of the responsibility for one's life. "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven".

The question is, which predicts a better future. One were you have faith that God will take care of you or one where you take responsibility to gather information related to your situation so you can make informed decisions?

Either way, life continues, events happen, good or bad and we deal with the results.
However, have you not heard this prayer?

Father, give us courage to change what must be altered, serenity to accept what cannot be helped, and the insight to know the one from the other.

There are aspects of the world we can control. Act upon. Wouldn't it be better to know how best to act on those aspects of our world we can control?

Or is "insight" something you have to wait for God to provide?
To be inspired? to Feel the call to act?

No, there are not aspects of the world that we can control. The only thing we can control is our choices.

Our choices might make some outcomes more likely than others. In a way, you might say that we influence the world, perhaps, but we do not control it.

Concepts like "responsibility" are vacuous, in my opinion, and don't really change the fact of the matter.

This might seem pedantic, but I think the distinction is important.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Leaving everything to God in a life dedicated to him. Might lead to a happy and fulfilling life, but almost certainly a poor one, and may be a short and tough one.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

In the face of battling cancer an internal locus of control is symptomatic of people who take ownership of their treatment. It is up to them, the patient, to take charge of the treatment. This internal locus of control predicts patient engagement and involvement. These patients are not passive. They are active in getting answers, seeking information, soliciting second opinions, and generally expecting excellence from their doctors. They take nothing for granted. Getting well is, after all, up to them. An internal locus of control.

Patients with external locus of control tend to be much more passive. It's up to the doctor--the Powerful Other--to fix them. These patients don't push back. They are docile. They don't seek second opinions or educate themselves. And such behavior predicts a worse outcome...

...So how does all this relate to the Holy Spirit?

Well think about it. If relying on a Powerful Other (think: Holy Spirit) is generally bad in the face of life trouble, then what does this have to say about leaning on God? Is leaning on God, psychologically, a bad thing to do? Does it keep us passive?

By contrast, an internal locus of control has been found to be, generally speaking, a good thing. But within the Christian tradition isn't leaning upon yourself considered to be a bad thing, even a sin?
Experimental Theology: The Psychology of Christianity: Part 12, The Holy Spirit and Locus of Control

The reliance on external forces tends to put a person a passive role. "It is up to God", "It is up to fate".

Vs it is up to me to inform myself and make the best choices so the outcome I desire is achieved.
Making the choice to become informed so one can make better choice for themselves.

As an atheist, there is no one else to rely on other than yourself. One is forced to accept responsibility for their future.

Does religion teach one to be passive to supernatural forces?
Or does religion teach one to take control of their own fate?

This thread reminds me of a story, though sometimes told as a joke:

It was about a man who fell into the water but couldn't swim.
As he was struggling to stay above water he prayed to God to save him.
Several times people spotted him and tried to rescue him, but he refused help, because he wanted to be rescued by God.
Eventually, he drowned.
When his soul returned to God, the drowned man asked Him why He didn't save him.
God said: "I tried to save you several times, but each time I sent someone to rescue you, you refused."

 

[1213]

...
Does religion teach one to be passive to supernatural forces?
Or does religion teach one to take control of their own fate?

Firstly I want to say, according to the Bible, Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth that leads person to truth. If person is passive, he is not interested of truth and doesn't seek it.

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you.
John 14:26

When the Counselor [Greek Parakletos: Counselor, Helper, Advocate, Intercessor, and Comfortor.] has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will testify about me.
John 15:26

However when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak from himself; but whatever he hears, he will speak. He will declare to you things that are coming.
John 16:13

Secondly, I think Bible gives people responsibility of their own life, they are guilty or not guilty. By what I see, naturalistic world view tells that people don't have free will, they are only programmed fleshbots that do what they are determined to do. This is why, I think it is the Godless worldview that teach that people have no control.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, there are not aspects of the world that we can control. The only thing we can control is our choices.

Our choices might make some outcomes more likely than others. In a way, you might say that we influence the world, perhaps, but we do not control it.

Concepts like "responsibility" are vacuous, in my opinion, and don't really change the fact of the matter.

This might seem pedantic, but I think the distinction is important.

Well, in a strict sense for cause and effect and the problem of free will and "I", we don't control anything. We just have processes that produces the narrative of choices and "I".

 

[Fool]

In the face of battling cancer an internal locus of control is symptomatic of people who take ownership of their treatment. It is up to them, the patient, to take charge of the treatment. This internal locus of control predicts patient engagement and involvement. These patients are not passive. They are active in getting answers, seeking information, soliciting second opinions, and generally expecting excellence from their doctors. They take nothing for granted. Getting well is, after all, up to them. An internal locus of control.

Patients with external locus of control tend to be much more passive. It's up to the doctor--the Powerful Other--to fix them. These patients don't push back. They are docile. They don't seek second opinions or educate themselves. And such behavior predicts a worse outcome...

...So how does all this relate to the Holy Spirit?

Well think about it. If relying on a Powerful Other (think: Holy Spirit) is generally bad in the face of life trouble, then what does this have to say about leaning on God? Is leaning on God, psychologically, a bad thing to do? Does it keep us passive?

By contrast, an internal locus of control has been found to be, generally speaking, a good thing. But within the Christian tradition isn't leaning upon yourself considered to be a bad thing, even a sin?
Experimental Theology: The Psychology of Christianity: Part 12, The Holy Spirit and Locus of Control

The reliance on external forces tends to put a person a passive role. "It is up to God", "It is up to fate".

Vs it is up to me to inform myself and make the best choices so the outcome I desire is achieved.
Making the choice to become informed so one can make better choice for themselves.

As an atheist, there is no one else to rely on other than yourself. One is forced to accept responsibility for their future.

Does religion teach one to be passive to supernatural forces?
Or does religion teach one to take control of their own fate?

sometimes there is a point of no return; whether you're atheist/theist. change is going to come

 

[Nakosis]

Firstly I want to say, according to the Bible, Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth that leads person to truth. If person is passive, he is not interested of truth and doesn't seek it.

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you.
John 14:26

When the Counselor [Greek Parakletos: Counselor, Helper, Advocate, Intercessor, and Comfortor.] has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will testify about me.
John 15:26

However when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak from himself; but whatever he hears, he will speak. He will declare to you things that are coming.
John 16:13

Secondly, I think Bible gives people responsibility of their own life, they are guilty or not guilty. By what I see, naturalistic world view tells that people don't have free will, they are only programmed fleshbots that do what they are determined to do. This is why, I think it is the Godless worldview that teach that people have no control.

I see the Spirit of Truth not as a supernatural intervention but as a choice an individual comes to makes for themselves. Perhaps as a level of mental maturity that one gains through experience.

For some reason, kids feel the best solution when caught in a transgression is to lie. Not exactly sure why the minds of youths and I guess many adults as well work that way.
I suspect eventually people learn the consequences of truth end up being much easier to deal with then those of telling lies.

 

[Nakosis]

sometimes there is a point of no return; whether you're atheist/theist. change is going to come

Ideally, we are prepared to face that change with sufficient knowledge.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, in a strict sense for cause and effect and the problem of free will and "I", we don't control anything. We just have processes that produces the narrative of choices and "I".

I see it a little differently.

If "I" is just the conscious self then certainly we predominately are at the whims of our unconscious processes. However I see the "I" as the entire being which include those unconscious processes.

Though perhaps we cannot directly control these unconscious process, it seems we can exert some conscious influence on them. If so, I don't think we can rightly say we are simply victims of our unconscious overlords.