Response to “Holy Spirit Absurdities”
I regard this section with little to no respect because anyone can make a sentence look ridiculous by inserting technical terminology into other kinds of literature. For example, “Dear [male parent], happy birthday. Love, Mary.” My daughter actually wrote me a card like that but she used the word “Daddy.”
One can also play this game with concepts we know to be true from Scripture. In Matthew 11:29 Jesus says he is “gentle and lowly in heart.” What if I were to use that description substitute it for Jesus in other places? We could have passages like
John 2:15 “And when [the gentle and lowly in heart] had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables.”
In Matthew 23:33 the gentle and lowly in heart says, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”
2 Thessalonians 1:6-8 “Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; And to you who are troubled rest with us, when [the gentle and lowly in heart] shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God . . .”
Whether a concept can be rephrased so as to make it sound silly is irrelevant to the question of whether the concept is valid or not.
To me, the rephrasing of someone’s argument in such a way as to make it look ridiculous is only valid if the logic of the argument is itself ridiculous. But Kel does not in this section show anything illogical about the Trinitarian belief regarding the Holy Spirit; he only proves he can word it awkwardly. So I regard this whole section as a species of the staw man argument, namely, he is making out the Trinitarian position to be something slightly different from what it really is, knocking that different position down, and then claiming that in doing so he has refuted the Trinitarian position.