Experiencing God

[Sonofason]

Let's just say that what are being derogatorily referred to as 'swine' are those who are offensive in some way, 'the infidel' in Islam; 'sinners', in Christian terms, etc. The point of any religion is to try to stir the conscience of these people so they might see the errors of their ways so a change might come about. But to label them in this manner only drives them further away, as derision only stirs up their resentment and anger. This is not the way of spiritual people. All spiritual teachings recognize that hatred cannot be confronted with more hatred, contempt, or condemnation, because that approach only achieves the opposite of the intended goal. Yeshu, in some of his last words, asked that his transgressors be forgiven not for their sin, but for their ignorance. And in the minds of his transgressors, they firmly believed they were doing the correct thing in their moral system. Nazis believed in their doctrine of racial purity and acted upon it, as misguided as it was. In the US, many Christians dream of establishing an official 'Christian Nation', not understanding that this would then promote the nurturing of a non-Christian scapegoat worthy of righteous ostracization and persecution, and even death. Currently, Buddhist monks in Miranmar slaughter Muslim men, women and children as retribution for the rape and murder of a Buddhist nun. Everywhere we look, we see the projection of Shadow onto some scapegoat in the vicious ego game of one-upmanship as a means of fortifying the Persona. This has become the scourge of mankind, with the hatred spreading like wildfire throughout the world, even, or perhaps especially, amongst those who claim to be acting in the name (or guise) of spiritual and/or religious 'authority'. The ultimate punishment of the 'wicked' has come via flood, famine, disease, and even via The Avenging Angel of Death. We await the image of Jesus, the Conquering General who will vanquish the wicked in some near future, and establish his 'kingdom on Earth', Ultimately, the final image will be of the righteous in Heaven, peering over the battlements to the wicked writhing in agony down below, exclaiming and taking comfort in the fact that they are getting every bit of what they deserve, in the old and ignorant Eye for an Eye philosophy. We are caught in a vicious circle of never-ending righteous punishment and retribution which ultimately does not work, as the emergence first of Al Queada, and then of ISIS and Boco Haram, and prisons filled to the brim are testament to. And, oh yes, let us not forget the horrifyingly brutal 400 year long Inquisition, all done in the name of Good, and Light, and Right.

Essentially, much of what has been attributed to Jesus are words put into his mouth by others. A truly spiritual being would not have uttered the quote in question. Only here and there do we find tidbits of the mystical words of Yeshua in the Bible which survived the destruction of his original teachings that were overwritten with the pagan teachings of Mithra, replacing a doctrine of the breath as the life-force with that of blood as the life-force, where blood sacrifice took precedence plunging man back into ignorance, guilt, and fear, and keeping him there as a means of controlling the human spirit. The 'debt' that man owes to God for his disobedience and the murder of his son can never really be repaid. Either one remains underfoot as the unforgiven, or joins in with the ranks of the righteous moral authority which metes out punishment and control, and which reaps the benefits by making the 'unforgiven' and 'unworthy' pay up. None of these scenarios have anything to do with the authentic spiritual experience. They are all ego-driven. practices.

Christianity: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do"
Taoism: "Requite hatred with virtue"
Hinduism: "Do only good to those who do evil against you"
Buddhism: "“Hatred does not cease through hatred at any time. Hatred ceases through love. This is an unalterable law.”

The Chinese Point of View:

When one formulates a concept of The Good, one has simultaneously also created a concept of Evil. In creating a concept of Evil, one must now oppose Evil, as dictated by The Good. In opposing Evil, one only makes Evil stronger. Therefore, the sage never tries to do moral Good.

Horrifying and brutal behavior coming from human beings, even human beings claiming to be enlightened doesn't surprise me in the least. After all we are human beings, and not one of us would I consider good.

 

[Sonofason]

Insult or no-insult is not really the point. It is the fact that you not only hold others who are not like you in contempt, but that you categorize them as beneath you, in this case, as unworthy of being human. Once you do this, whether privately or publicly, you have made the object of your contempt expendable or unworthy. The real problem here is the self. When certain individuals attach themselves to some 'higher' power in a manner that makes them think they are in it's favor, they assume that those who are not attached are not in it's favor. So they develop a superiority complex of sorts, in a grand hen-pecking order, with the most 'favored' being the closest to their chosen higher power. I see this even within religious groups themselves. IOW, it is all about "I". "I" thinks it is now 'this' in comparison to 'that'. This is religious indoctrination and discrimination at work, when the reality of the authentic spiritual experience is such that "I" becomes dissolved away, like the drop of water merging with the sea. This is the end of Identity. Buddhists call this experience 'Nirvana', which literally means 'to extinguish', and what becomes extinguished is the illusion of "I"; of the self. There is no such "I" that is either favored or enlightened: there is only a transformation of consciousness from a personal view to a universal one. There is no such 'experiencer' of the experience. No authentic spiritually-transformed individual would ever think of himself as superior to anyone else to the point of labelling them as 'swine'. His new found humility would make him see himself as being like everyone else, and his compassion for those in darkness make him want to relieve them of their sufferings.

As for your 'pearls', you have yet to realize that they are Nothing Special, though you may regard them as such now. All sentient beings are in possession of the same Universal Consciousness that you are. It is simply that some have not yet awakened. All that the awakened can do is to point, in the hopes that some may turn toward the Light.

"Before Enlightenment, it is Something Special;
after Enlightenment, it is Nothing Special"

Zen source
*****

"When an ordinary man gains wisdom, he becomes a sage;
when a sage gains understanding, he becomes an ordinary man"

Source unknown
*****

Being human beings does not make any of us worthy of anything greater than eternal condemnation, or perhaps eternal nothingness, which ever you prefer. No one is awakened. Some see a bit more clearly than others, but all of us are rather pathetic in my opinion.

 

[godnotgod]

Being human beings does not make any of us worthy of anything greater than eternal condemnation, or perhaps eternal nothingness, which ever you prefer. No one is awakened. Some see a bit more clearly than others, but all of us are rather pathetic in my opinion.

What you see and how you see it is a reflection of what is in your own mind. You are obviously still caught in the throes of duality, thinking 'worthy' and 'unworthy'. The non-dual view would say: 'I am neither worthy, nor not-worthy'. Then you are free, which is really the goal of the spiritual experience.

You say 'some see a bit more clearly than others'; what do you suppose is in them that allows them to do so?

 

[godnotgod]

Horrifying and brutal behavior coming from human beings, even human beings claiming to be enlightened doesn't surprise me in the least. After all we are human beings, and not one of us would I consider good.

You claim to 'follow Christ'. Jesus told us that the kingdom of God is to be found within us. Does that not make man intrinsically good? Apparently, God thought so, as He 'so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son' to it; and was so enamored of the flesh that He transformed himself into the stuff. And here we are, in all its brazen, shameless glory.

 

[Muffled]

Your response here is tell-tale.

You are not well versed in spiritual things; you are filled with religious beliefs.

The spiritual experience is not taught, as in 'well-versed'. It is not an accumulation of data, facts, and ideas that lead up to knowledge, but rather what comes when factual knowledge is subtracted; when the mind ceases its activities. It is not about thinking, but about seeing, not with the eyes, but with consciousness, that which is, and not what the mind thinks is the case. It is the experience of what is present before mind.

There is no mind that is in a receptive mode; there is transcendence of mind itself. Even in the world of perceptual reality, there can be experience without word or vision. The experience of coldness when you accidentally fall into a mountain lake is one without sight or sound, although sight and sound are involved. In the meditative state, once the discursive mind has become quiet, Big Mind can then come into play. This experience is completely silent and without imagery, and is a shift away from mind and into Pure Consciousness, which is silent and still, without color, taste, smell or tactile sensation. It is Unborn, Unformed, Uncaused, and Unconditioned.

It is obvious from your comments above that you are still attached to the world of perceptual reality: sight, sound, touch, smell, taste. The divine nature is an experience in Ultimate Reality, which is beyond mind and all perceptual reality. It is beyond self and it's idea of 'other'. The spiritual experience, in the words of Deepak Chopra, "is the merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation into a single Reality". This wordless, imageless experience is what mystics refer to as 'divine union'. When the drop of water has returned to the limitless ocean, there is no longer an individual drop; it has merged with the One.

The world of perceptual reality is about the conditioned mind; that of Ultimate Reality is about the awakened consciousness behind mind.
*****

Look, it cannot be seen - it is beyond form.
Listen, it cannot be heard - it is beyond sound.
Grasp, it cannot be held - it is intangible.
These three are indefinable;
Therefore they are joined in one.

From above it is not bright;
From below it is not dark:
An unbroken thread beyond description.
It returns to nothingness.
The form of the formless,
The image of the imageless,
It is called indefinable and beyond imagination.

Stand before it and there is no beginning.
Follow it and there is no end.
Stay with the ancient Tao,
Move with the present.

Knowing the ancient beginning is the essence of Tao.

Tao te Ching, Ch 14

http://terebess.hu/english/tao/waley.html

I believe that I am well versed in spirituality. There is nothing religious that impedes my spiritual understanding. You have not proven that I am not spiritual or that religion impedes my spiritual understanding.

My deduction is that if you are mindless then you know nothing about spirituality because knowledge is held in the mind.

i believe if you have experienced nothingness then you have not experienced Big Mind as you call it. Meditation on nothingness might allow the person's spirit to work but my belief is that Big Mind ought to be the mind of God since my spiritual mind isn't all that big.

I believe you must be misconstruing what I said because I am attached only to God.

I believe you have contradicted what Chopra said.

I like the Tao reference but I would term it differently. Look with the eyes, listen with the ears, grasp with the hands. The spiritual mind can see ie God says He sees what we are doing but He has no eyes since He is Spirit. The spiritual mind can hear ie God hears our prayers but He has no ears. The spiritual mind can touch ie God moves on the Red Sea and it parts even though He doesn't have hands.

 

[Muffled]

I've been daring demons to infest me for years now, ain't seen one yet.

I believe you should be careful what you wish for you just might get it. However if you are such an aware adversary I can understand why they would avoid you.

 

[Muffled]

The Problem with Reason:

"We create a certain theory and then there is the honeymoon with the theory. For a few years things go perfectly well. Then reality asserts itself. Reality brings up a few things and the theory gets into difficulty because we had excluded a few facts. Those facts will protest, they will sabotage your theory, they will assert themselves. In the eighteenth century science was absolutely certain, now it is certain no more. Now a new theory has come: the theory of uncertainty.

Just a hundred and fifty years ago Immanuel Kant came across this fact in Germany. He said that reason is very limited; it sees only a certain part of reality and starts believing 'that this is the whole. This has been the trouble. Sooner or later we discover further realities and the old whole is in conflict with the new vision. Immanuel Kant attempted to show that there were ineluctable limits to reason, that reason is very limited. But nobody seems to have heard, nobody has cared about Immanuel Kant. Nobody cares much about philosophers.

But science in this century has at last caught up with Kant. Now Heinsenberg, in physics, and Godel, in mathematics, have shown ineluctable limits to human reason. They open up to us a glimpse of a nature which is irrational and paradoxical to the very core*. Whatsoever we have been saying about nature has all gone wrong. All principles go wrong because nature is not synonymous with reason, nature is bigger than reason.

And Zen is not a philosophy; Zen is a mirror, it is a reflection of that which is. As it is, Zen stays the same. It does not bring any man-made philosophy into it, it has no choice, it does not add, it does not delete. That's why Zen is paradoxical -- because life is paradoxical. You just see and you will understand."

Osho

http://thegreatmysticlibrary.com/reader/reader.php?author=osho&endpos=198003&page=91&book=Zen - The Path of Paradox, Vol 1

*And now Quantum Physics has overturned the applecart of Newtonian Physics.

I believe I enjoyed reading that.

I believe reason is only as good as the facts feeding it but it is still the best method for reaching a conclusion even if the we find out later that different facts lead to a different conclusion.

 

[godnotgod]

I believe I enjoyed reading that.

I believe reason is only as good as the facts feeding it but it is still the best method for reaching a conclusion even if the we find out later that different facts lead to a different conclusion.

So Reason leads us to a temporal paradigm we accept as true but that at some point becomes invalid when new information reveals inconsistencies in the currently accepted paradigm. Now, if we are seeking some permanent Reality that does not change, Reason seems to be a poor tool to utilize. If such a Reality exists (ie; 'Ultimate Reality'), then some other approach seems to be in order, and Reason should be set aside as being incapable of leading us to that Reality.

'Reason', in fact, stands squarely in the way:

Paradox

"The place wherein Thou art found unveiled is girt round with the coincidence of contradictions, and this is the wall of Paradise wherein Thou dost abide. The door whereof is guarded by the most proud spirit of Reason, and, unless he be vanquished, the way in will not lie open."
Nicholas of Cusa

http://www.headless.org/tradition/paradox.htm

 

[godnotgod]

I believe reason is only as good as the facts feeding it but it is still the best method for reaching a conclusion even if the we find out later that different facts lead to a different conclusion.

What you are describing is sort of like being in a dark room, and then someone starts to open the door, where only some light enters. You see things, but can't quite make them out. Then, the door is opened a bit wider, with more light entering, and what you thought you saw now appears to be something entirely different. Reason is like that. It reveals only some features of Reality, but not Reality itself. The color of my eyes and hair is not who I am. So even as applied to how the phenomenal world behaves, it is limited and subject to change. How much less is it applicable to reaching an understanding of the divine nature, which is invisible, intangible, silent, colorless, odorless, and tasteless. via Reason, we cannot tell what God IS; we can only tell what God is NOT. In the end, ALL descriptions of God are eliminated, until one is left with NOTHING. It is then, and only then, can we even begin to have an authentic spiritual experience, one devoid of delusion and fantasy, which are generated by the THINKING mind, that is to say, by the mind of Reason.

 

[godnotgod]

I believe that I am well versed in spirituality. There is nothing religious that impedes my spiritual understanding. You have not proven that I am not spiritual or that religion impedes my spiritual understanding.

My deduction is that if you are mindless then you know nothing about spirituality because knowledge is held in the mind.

i believe if you have experienced nothingness then you have not experienced Big Mind as you call it. Meditation on nothingness might allow the person's spirit to work but my belief is that Big Mind ought to be the mind of God since my spiritual mind isn't all that big.

I believe you must be misconstruing what I said because I am attached only to God.

I believe you have contradicted what Chopra said.

I like the Tao reference but I would term it differently. Look with the eyes, listen with the ears, grasp with the hands. The spiritual mind can see ie God says He sees what we are doing but He has no eyes since He is Spirit. The spiritual mind can hear ie God hears our prayers but He has no ears. The spiritual mind can touch ie God moves on the Red Sea and it parts even though He doesn't have hands.

*****

Please explain what you mean by 'well-versed' in spirituality.

The spiritual experience has nothing to do with what you know. Otherwise, it could not be what it is, because it is beyond the knowledge that the mind maintains. It is not in Time, Space, or Causation. It is beyond mind, thinking, logic, reason, and analysis. It is precisely why Yeshua said: 'My kingdom is not of this world', and 'I Am', because the world of the spirit is not of the illusion that is the world, and yet is what is manifesting as the world.

Religion is a body of knowledge and practice that, if understood correctly, can lead to the spiritual experience, but is not itself the spiritual experience. The spiritual experience is like NOTHING you know or have EVER experienced before. And that is why complete emptying of the mind, even of the self-concept of mind, is so crucial to the experience itself. In Zen, this state is called 'no-mind'; in Christianity, it is called 'kenosis':

Kenosis

In Christian theology, kenosis (Greek: κένωσις, kénōsis, lit. emptiness) is the 'self-emptying' of one's own will and becoming entirely receptive to God's divine will.

The word ἐκένωσεν (ekénōsen) is used in Philippians 2:7, "[Jesus] made himself nothing ..."[Phil. 2:7] (NIV) or "...[he] emptied himself..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosis


The ordinary conditioned mind, which is the mind of Reason and Logic, must come to a complete halt in order for divine union to occur.

Show me the contradiction you think I am having with Chopra.

The Tao reference is simply saying that being in touch with Tao (ie; the true nature of things) is beyond perceptual reality.

 

[Muffled]

*****

Please explain what you mean by 'well-versed' in spirituality.

The spiritual experience has nothing to do with what you know. Otherwise, it could not be what it is, because it is beyond the knowledge that the mind maintains. It is not in Time, Space, or Causation. It is beyond mind, thinking, logic, reason, and analysis. It is precisely why Yeshua said: 'My kingdom is not of this world', and 'I Am', because the world of the spirit is not of the illusion that is the world, and yet is what is manifesting as the world.

Religion is a body of knowledge and practice that, if understood correctly, can lead to the spiritual experience, but is not itself the spiritual experience. The spiritual experience is like NOTHING you know or have EVER experienced before. And that is why complete emptying of the mind, even of the self-concept of mind, is so crucial to the experience itself. In Zen, this state is called 'no-mind'; in Christianity, it is called 'kenosis':

Kenosis

In Christian theology, kenosis (Greek: κένωσις, kénōsis, lit. emptiness) is the 'self-emptying' of one's own will and becoming entirely receptive to God's divine will.

The word ἐκένωσεν (ekénōsen) is used in Philippians 2:7, "[Jesus] made himself nothing ..."[Phil. 2:7] (NIV) or "...[he] emptied himself..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosis


The ordinary conditioned mind, which is the mind of Reason and Logic, must come to a complete halt in order for divine union to occur.

Show me the contradiction you think I am having with Chopra.

The Tao reference is simply saying that being in touch with Tao (ie; the true nature of things) is beyond perceptual reality.

I believe it means that I know a lot about it.

I believe you don't know much.

I believe that is not the case.

I don't believe it is exactly the same but I can certainly see parallells.

I believe what you mean is that one can't be thinking and receiving at the same time. In my case God is doing my thinking so the mind is quite active under His control.

I believe you said "beyond mind and all perceptual reality." Chopra said "the merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation." Observation is a mental activity or do you disagree with that?

 

[godnotgod]

I believe it means that I know a lot about it.

I believe you don't know much.

I believe that is not the case.

I don't believe it is exactly the same but I can certainly see parallells.

I believe what you mean is that one can't be thinking and receiving at the same time. In my case God is doing my thinking so the mind is quite active under His control.

I believe you said "beyond mind and all perceptual reality." Chopra said "the merging of the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation." Observation is a mental activity or do you disagree with that?

*****

What does knowledge ABOUT spirituality have to do with the spiritual experience itself?

If the spiritual experience is beyond your knowledge, then knowledge is useless in comparison to the experience itself.

The spiritual experience is the experience of The Infinite. Your mind is that of the finite, and cannot contain nor fathom that which is of the nature of The Infinite. What is it that you think you know that can be applied to the experience of The Infinite?

So you allow for the emptying of mind as a pre-requisite to the spiritual experience, yes?

If God is 'doing your thinking', what is your mind doing simultaneously to contribute to the experience? If you want to have a rewarding experience, should'nt you get yourself out of the way so God can be heard? What is so important about your 'knowledge' that you must continue the ceaseless chatter of your thinking mind?

What I mean is that one needs to be totally receptive to the divine nature, and that means the complete cessation of all of the activities of the mind, so that only pure conscious attention remains. Your knowledge ABOUT God is not what God is about.

Observation is not a mental activity; it is a non-activity of consciousness. It just sees what is without thinking about what is. When that occurs there is no 'see-er' of the seen; no 'observer' of the observation; there is only pure seeing itself. Therefore, as Chopra said, 'the observer, the observed, and the process of observation' merge into a single Reality. That which is beyond mind means there is no longer subject/object; no longer observer and observed, because it is mind which creates these dualities, when, in reality, no such duality exists. The spiritual transformation that occurs during the spiritual experience is to see into the non-dual nature of Reality, rather than to continue to see the illusory dual world as real.

 

[Muffled]

*****

What does knowledge ABOUT spirituality have to do with the spiritual experience itself?

If the spiritual experience is beyond your knowledge, then knowledge is useless in comparison to the experience itself.

The spiritual experience is the experience of The Infinite. Your mind is that of the finite, and cannot contain nor fathom that which is of the nature of The Infinite. What is it that you think you know that can be applied to the experience of The Infinite?

So you allow for the emptying of mind as a pre-requisite to the spiritual experience, yes?

If God is 'doing your thinking', what is your mind doing simultaneously to contribute to the experience? If you want to have a rewarding experience, should'nt you get yourself out of the way so God can be heard? What is so important about your 'knowledge' that you must continue the ceaseless chatter of your thinking mind?

What I mean is that one needs to be totally receptive to the divine nature, and that means the complete cessation of all of the activities of the mind, so that only pure conscious attention remains. Your knowledge ABOUT God is not what God is about.

Observation is not a mental activity; it is a non-activity of consciousness. It just sees what is without thinking about what is. When that occurs there is no 'see-er' of the seen; no 'observer' of the observation; there is only pure seeing itself. Therefore, as Chopra said, 'the observer, the observed, and the process of observation' merge into a single Reality. That which is beyond mind means there is no longer subject/object; no longer observer and observed, because it is mind which creates these dualities, when, in reality, no such duality exists. The spiritual transformation that occurs during the spiritual experience is to see into the non-dual nature of Reality, rather than to continue to see the illusory dual world as real.

I believe I know what the Spirit tells me.

 

[godnotgod]

I believe I know what the Spirit tells me.

If you actually knew what the Spirit tells you, you would not have to believe. Certainty is beyond belief. What good is having a belief in what the Spirit is saying if you don't actually understand it fully? An interpretation of the message is not the message itself.

 

[Blastcat]

I believe I know what the Spirit tells me.

Ok, you have a belief.
How do you know that your belief is a true one?

 

[Muffled]

If you actually knew what the Spirit tells you, you would not have to believe. Certainty is beyond belief. What good is having a belief in what the Spirit is saying if you don't actually understand it fully? An interpretation of the message is not the message itself.

I have been told by RF management that there is no certainty, so I believe 1+1=2 and that I know what the Spirit tells me.

 

[Muffled]

Ok, you have a belief.
How do you know that your belief is a true one?

I believe there are levels of certainty such as black being darker than white. Often that comes by the way we define things. I define God as the only one who can tell me the future and He did, so I know from that He is reliable in all that He says and does. I also go by the fact that the Holy Spirit is promised to those who receive Jesus as Lord and Savior and I did.

 

[Blastcat]

!

True beliefs vs beliefs​

I believe there are levels of certainty such as black being darker than white.

Me too.
So.. good start.
I love it when theists and atheists can agree like that..

Often that comes by the way we define things.

Could you elaborate on how defining things leads to certainty?

I define God as the only one who can tell me the future and He did

Ok, how about I play the devil's advocate for a bit and say that I define God as not being able to tell you the future and He didn't?
Does my definition change anything ?

, so I know from that He is reliable in all that He says and does.

Is forming a definition the same as knowing what we are describing is TRUE?

I also go by the fact that the Holy Spirit is promised to those who receive Jesus as Lord and Savior and I did.

Is it a fact about Holy Spirit or a belief in Holy Spirit, and how can I tell the difference between the two?
In other words, how could I verify that your statement is a true belief and not just a belief?

 

[godnotgod]

I have been told by RF management that there is no certainty, so I believe 1+1=2 and that I know what the Spirit tells me.

How can you 'believe what you know?' That is illogical. If you know, then you do not believe, and vice-versa. Knowing is certainty. So are you certain about what the spirit tells you?

The statement by RF management is a statement of certainty, is it not?

 

[Muffled]

!

True beliefs vs beliefs​

Me too.
So.. good start.
I love it when theists and atheists can agree like that..

Could you elaborate on how defining things leads to certainty?

Ok, how about I play the devil's advocate for a bit and say that I define God as not being able to tell you the future and He didn't?
Does my definition change anything ?

Is forming a definition the same as knowing what we are describing is TRUE?

Is it a fact about Holy Spirit or a belief in Holy Spirit, and how can I tell the difference between the two?
In other words, how could I verify that your statement is a true belief and not just a belief?

I believe we name things. We are taught as children the names of each color. In Spanish though it is negro and blanco. Darkness and light come from physical perception ie the eyes. A blind person does not know light but some perceive lesser darkness perhaps. God does not perceive it because He doesn't see through human eyes.
Ps 139:12 Even the darkness hideth not from thee, But the night shineth as the day: The darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

I believe it does because now you have to come up with another explanation as to why a voice could predict the future and what that voice is. For me I base my definition on precedent ie God has predicted things in the past. That precedent joined with the concept that God does not change, means that He can do it again. I join that with the fact that I have the Holy Spirit (God).

I believe it is true by logic:

Only God prophecies.
I received a prophecy that came true.
Therefore God prophesied the event to me.

I believe the proof is in the pudding ie The Holy Spirit brought peace Joy and love into my life and has served as a guide into righteousness. It probably does not show up as a big difference in me because I was a relatively good person before the change but others have had dramatic changes in their lives. I have met Christians who did not receive the Holy Spirit and though they believe in it, it is obvious that they do not have it.