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 praise God for all the good that happens, and to find 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 continuously call for God's assistance (rather in vain as this does not help them much better - and scorned be anyone that complains so), that only they receive. Of course, this God would would not provide them the means to reliably manage by themselves 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 fulfill, 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 omnipotence and omniscience of God they are supposed to come from. Indeed, the study of the various miracles reported by Christians that claim to testify the intervention of God in their life, actually shows that the fields of competence of the Holy Spirit are roughly limited to the following categories:

Influences of the devil

However there are other supernatural phenomena involving spirits of beyond, like hypnosis, clairvoyance, the dowsing, the healings by putting 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 for any form of possession to be a purely malefic thing? Christianity sees the spirits of beyond as being inevitably either completely white and servants of God, or completely black 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 believe tales ? Considering all the people who could die under various conditions and with various personalities and their various senses of humor, why would not there be some jokers, that did not decide to leave our space and the neighborhood of the Earth, 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 seem to do so.

Do you believe that all spirits not sent by God necessarily want to divert men from the Gospel because they want to lose men? What for ? They are just making fun, or doing any short-sighted action. Anyway, the Gospel does not really have any major spiritual value, so it is all the same. It is funnier to masquerade as the Holy Spirit in the Christians eyes, in order for the game to 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 relations with Christians? Do they only seek to have fun, or have deeper motivations? Are these motivations good, bad or something else ?

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 there is at least one possible explanation to these miracles, explanation which has the double advantage of being completely natural and to invite reflections on the meaning (and the nonsense) of Christianity. This suffices to refute the usual implicit Christian assumption, that miracles occuring among them would be in themselves a complete and undeniable evidence of the veracity of their doctrines (in other words, the claim that miracles cannot exist without God - even though they claim themselves that the Devil makes miracles too). Here it is:

What can happen when an enthusiastic Christian firmly rooted in biblical faith dies, the light of God appears to him, 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 redeeming sins by 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 spirit than that of Jesus or any of His representatives. 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 against God. Thus refusing to raise to divine light 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 his life: to preach the Gospel of Christ to all the nations of the Earth. As he always did all his life, he will not care to check by other means whether it 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, for God's sake. Of all his terrestrial life he continuously trained to believe that his mission wanted by God was to preach the Gospel, disregarding any other observation to check 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 path 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 be intellectually fair and analyze and follow the truth scrupulously, but to save hearts by bringing them to the faith in Jesus. But the faith is produced by means of conviction, and this end justifies all means.
Of course, he may have troubles to completely follow on other side this path 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 masquerade 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 meaning. And the loss of meaning of one's existence is the biggest fear ever.

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 but a big mistake, and tries to confront his point of view with a Christian, the Christian does not even seek to understand and to discuss it, because:

1) He may systematically interpret any opposite view as an influence of the Devil even in face of testimonies that all is natural and even very rational: "the adversary in your head shows you...". Christians thus involve supernatural explanations to all what do not confirm their sights. But actually I clearly see now, thousand times more lucidly, honestly and with the obviousness of the truth than when I was Christian. What I know, I did not invent and nobody persuaded me. I know what I see and which is very clear, what 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 they have the ultimate truth, by "explaining" every contradicting thought in others as being of diabolic inspiration. Simple definition: [The thought of God is what agrees with mine; any contradicting thoughts of others are diabolic hallucinations. Thus I am right and those who do not agree with me are the insane people handled by the devil, no matter what]. Such is the positions reached by some. But if the devil could thus make one mistake things in a way which appears under such appearances of 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, even before any try to defend any position on this subject, I acknowledge that the proclamation of such nonsense by Christians, nearly succeeded to convince me of the existence of such an almighthy Devil manipulating people's minds, as the only possible explanation to this spectacle that they offer me, of their incredibly terrible and decided blindness and their ridiculous proclamations of monumental nonsense, which they proclaim with such a strong and serene certitude in the name of the revelation of the Holy Spirit over them.

2) Christians replied to me "What is the point of examining the question? since my words will not have any impact on you, except the power of Jesus when He appears to you ". Christians see any discussion as vain. Whan an odd conception of the human thought. A thought which without the light of Christ can be easily mistaken to the point to have a strong impression to see clear evidences for any arbitrary false claims. Namely, evidences that the Bible is only a ridiculous human manufactured work and not a word of God; evidences that man have common ancestors with apes 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 of man descending from the apes would be ridiculous: "man descends from the ape and the ape climbs down from the tree"); some scorn the evidence that the Earth is billion years old; a few centuries ago, the evidence that the Earth revolves around the sun. "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 to dispute this "false" evidence successfully. 

Christians may claim to know nothing of what human thought depends on. But if they claim to know nothing of why does someone else think something else, whereas that person knows for it a precise reason, who is most right/reliable: the one who claims to understand it, or the one claiming 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 who wrote me "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 field of dishonesty.

An honest person works to say true things, not "powerful" and effective things. True arguments and claims are naturally effective by the natural effectiveness of the truth to be imparable; not artificially by the operation of the Holy Spirit. If an honest person appears to have said wrong things, he recognizes his error and corrects himself. If he said true things without being convincing, he always has the chance of justifying his claims afterwards because he knows why they were true and can always answer criticisms.
But someone 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 there is still a chance. If he does not see anything of all that, then it is clear he was wrong or at least that he did not know (but who has nothing to say should shut up).
Then, not to acknowledge the refutation is the sign that one does not want to face the truth. If one 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: others will be able to notice the origin of the disagreement 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), this means 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 utter words according to what can persuade the other, just as lies are uttered 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 divine guidance he wants to receive is the one which will make him the spokesman of the lying spirits in the air.
Or eventually I could understand the care for persuasion if it were about speaking to completely stunned and irrational beings, unable to distinguish the truth when it is said, but who nevertheless need to be convinced (what a horrible task to try to force the truth to insane people !). But this expresses the poor respect which they address to their non-Christian interlocutors and their freedom of thought.

(Conclusion I wrote some time before I concluded that I must refuse dialogue because any try of dialogue will necessarily be a waste of time and of nerves anyway:)

In any case, if you want to speak 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 lead him will not have the insanity to make me waste my time, making me struggle against so-called Christian positions that "true Christians" will then dismiss, to accuse me to make a false debate with wrong christians. Besides that, I think that that will not happen because it is impossible to lie and persuade (or at least to behave non-ridiculously in the public, in front of) someone who knows.


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