Speaking in 'toungues'
-
(char)rnd.NextInt((int)'a',(int)'z');(Yeah, I know that's not correct code, but you get the point)Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What do you mean?
I was just impressed with your response to Christian. Take no prisoners young man!
Josh Gray wrote:
I was just impressed with your response to Christian. Take no prisoners young man!
Oh, OK! :) Are they bald and/or grey because I'm so stressful to be related to? ;P
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes. There are people in my church who prayed to God for salvation, spoke in tongues, had no idea what it meant, and found our church.
So they were not familiar with the bible passages that refer to speaking in tongues?
Some of them were not. I can't speak for them all.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The point is entirely that we are given the words we need to speak.
No the point is why would you need to speak them?
Well, this is the age old story of deciding there can't be a God b/c He doesn't do things the way we would like. The Bible says that God gives us the worlds to speak because we don't know what we should pray for. If being given the words to pray benefits God, or us, the Bible is not clear. Why we should need to pray the things we don't know for, instead of just saying 'and don't forget the stuff I don't know', is also not clear except that by the very act, we're reminded that we don't know enough to know all the things we should be asking for or seeking, all the time. Speaking in tongues, according to the Bible, builds up our faith and keeps us in God's love.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The brain is chemical, but this sort of diagnosis and over examination is the self defeating. It allows people who reject God to try to take some sort of high moral ground, while simultaneously have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Given that God made my brain, why should I, with the limited human understanding of how it works, tell Him how it MUST work, for Him to exist ?
I respectfully disagree. God didn't make the brain, evolution did and there's plenty of evidence to back that up. Even if he did, though, that would just mean that he "hardcoded" speaking in tongues into the brain - then why aren't we all speaking in tongues?
harold aptroot wrote:
God didn't make the brain, evolution did and there's plenty of evidence to back that up
Not really. There's plenty of stuff we interpret that way, in the framework of what we generally believe. In that sense, we're no different to the people who held opposing views in the past.
harold aptroot wrote:
Even if he did, though, that would just mean that he "hardcoded" speaking in tongues into the brain - then why aren't we all speaking in tongues?
Speaking in tongues is not hard coded in the brain at all. You're making the ongoing mistake of trying to reduce God to be constrained by your thought processes, and to reason a way to try to prove He can't exist. It doesn't work, that is, it's not a reliable proof at all.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Well, this is the age old story of deciding there can't be a God b/c He doesn't do things the way we would like. The Bible says that God gives us the worlds to speak because we don't know what we should pray for. If being given the words to pray benefits God, or us, the Bible is not clear. Why we should need to pray the things we don't know for, instead of just saying 'and don't forget the stuff I don't know', is also not clear except that by the very act, we're reminded that we don't know enough to know all the things we should be asking for or seeking, all the time. Speaking in tongues, according to the Bible, builds up our faith and keeps us in God's love.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, this is the age old story of deciding there can't be a God b/c He doesn't do things the way we would like. The Bible says that God gives us the worlds to speak because we don't know what we should pray for. If being given the words to pray benefits God, or us, the Bible is not clear. Why we should need to pray the things we don't know for, instead of just saying 'and don't forget the stuff I don't know', is also not clear except that by the very act, we're reminded that we don't know enough to know all the things we should be asking for or seeking, all the time. Speaking in tongues, according to the Bible, builds up our faith and keeps us in God's love. Christian Graus
Wow
-
Yes, that is correct. Yet, Jesus said that salvation was a narrow way and few would find it. If all the people who claimed to be Christian, were, the Bible would be proven wrong, as it happens.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
They are not Christians at all. A Christian, at the point of conversion, speaks in tongues. That's what the Bible says. They are not deliberately fake, they are simply religious without being Christians.
15He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.” Did you do all of those other things as well?
When Jesus was asked a similar question, He responded to Satan that God said not to test Him. My response is the same. I believe God can protect me. I don't believe I should seek danger to prove it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
So its not supposed to be understood by anyone, is unique from one person to the next, isnt really a language, but a series of noises given to you by the holy ghost to enable you to pray effectively. And you have no idea what you are saying, or praying for when you are gibbering away?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
So its not supposed to be understood by anyone, is unique from one person to the next, isnt really a language, but a series of noises given to you by the holy ghost to enable you to pray effectively. And you have no idea what you are saying, or praying for when you are gibbering away?
I understand you're trying to make it sound ridiculous, but yes, you are correct in every comment you've made.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
to all creation
What, to plants, and cats and stuff?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved
So you can baptize a plant?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues
So the plants and cats and stuff are going to speak new tongues? (Unless the new tongue is just English. Afetr all, at the time it would be a new tongue.)
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Did you do all of those other things as well?
Now you are just being clever! After all, if you dont drink deadly poison you arent a christian, despite what the snake handlilng people say, or the tongue gibbers say! :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote: to all creation What, to plants, and cats and stuff?
This is being deliberately obtuse, and you're not even reading the Bible in the original language to be able to nit pick on the basis of the absolute literal meaning of the word chosen.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
When Jesus was asked a similar question, He responded to Satan that God said not to test Him. My response is the same. I believe God can protect me. I don't believe I should seek danger to prove it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
So, bear with me for a moment: you're saying that you can do these things, but you're not going to prove it because you believe that you don't need to? :confused: How come you only talk about doing the one most readily explained by natural mechanisms?
-
harold aptroot wrote:
God didn't make the brain, evolution did and there's plenty of evidence to back that up
Not really. There's plenty of stuff we interpret that way, in the framework of what we generally believe. In that sense, we're no different to the people who held opposing views in the past.
harold aptroot wrote:
Even if he did, though, that would just mean that he "hardcoded" speaking in tongues into the brain - then why aren't we all speaking in tongues?
Speaking in tongues is not hard coded in the brain at all. You're making the ongoing mistake of trying to reduce God to be constrained by your thought processes, and to reason a way to try to prove He can't exist. It doesn't work, that is, it's not a reliable proof at all.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
So, bear with me for a moment: you're saying that you can do these things, but you're not going to prove it because you believe that you don't need to? :confused: How come you only talk about doing the one most readily explained by natural mechanisms?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
So, bear with me for a moment: you're saying that you can do these things, but you're not going to prove it because you believe that you don't need to?
Not at all. I am saying I don't expect if I went out and handled snakes deliberately, that I would be OK, because that's a promise of protection, not a superpower. That's why Jesus said He would not put Himself in danger to try to prove promises made in the Bible.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
How come you only talk about doing the one most readily explained by natural mechanisms?
Because you're picking on one Bible passage, I'm talking about the one thing in that passage that is widely spoken of through out the new testament, is nominated by the Bible as the thing that happens when someone becomes a Christian, as the thing that is under my control, and the thing that is an ability from God that I should use regularly, rather than a promise of protection if needed. Being able to pray for the sick does not mean I order Anthrax power and put it on my Weet Bix, for example.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What do you mean?
I was just impressed with your response to Christian. Take no prisoners young man!
*grin* nothing he said was new to me. It's based on the usual, people reading a little bit of the Bible without placing it in context or understanding how it works.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
No, it made perfect sense, and I have in fact argued the same thing a while back. You can't have both, or either, and remain internally consistent.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You can't have both, or either, and remain internally consistent.
Why not? If you know everything you know every possible outcome of an event, going down a chain from every moment. That doesn't mean you can't change the outcomes, it just means you know what the consequences are of doing so. I would imagine that having full knowledge and the ability to do anything just means you have better choices. "I step on this ant and in 1.2 million years WW2 happens. That's horrible, but the advances in tech will make it so that in 2011 the aliens will get beaten back and they will make it to 2012 so they can all die as the world ends. I gave em a year. Bye mr. ant." :)
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
*grin* nothing he said was new to me. It's based on the usual, people reading a little bit of the Bible without placing it in context or understanding how it works.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
*grin* nothing he said was new to me. It's based on the usual, people reading a little bit of the Bible without placing it in context or understanding how it works.
Is understanding how it works based on passages from the Bible?
-
Josh Gray wrote:
I was just impressed with your response to Christian. Take no prisoners young man!
Oh, OK! :) Are they bald and/or grey because I'm so stressful to be related to? ;P
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You can't have both, or either, and remain internally consistent.
Why not? If you know everything you know every possible outcome of an event, going down a chain from every moment. That doesn't mean you can't change the outcomes, it just means you know what the consequences are of doing so. I would imagine that having full knowledge and the ability to do anything just means you have better choices. "I step on this ant and in 1.2 million years WW2 happens. That's horrible, but the advances in tech will make it so that in 2011 the aliens will get beaten back and they will make it to 2012 so they can all die as the world ends. I gave em a year. Bye mr. ant." :)
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
You're saying that omniscience is not knowing what the outcome is but knowing what every possible outcome could be. Essentially everything is possible, even if only remotely so, so your definition pretty much boils down to knowing that at every moment anything is possible, which isn't really knowledge at all.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
*grin* nothing he said was new to me. It's based on the usual, people reading a little bit of the Bible without placing it in context or understanding how it works.
Is understanding how it works based on passages from the Bible?
A lot of the time. For example, Jesus gives the answer to your question, as I've already said. You will say that makes it self defeating. I say it makes it self defining. The end result is the same. I approach the Bible with faith based on my experience. You approach it with a lack of respect borne from a desire to disprove it, so there's no wonder you don't want to spend the time to really understand it. That's cool, I understand it. It just won't change the answers I'll give, from the Bible.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
When Jesus was asked a similar question, He responded to Satan that God said not to test Him. My response is the same. I believe God can protect me. I don't believe I should seek danger to prove it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I believe God can protect me
and
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't believe I should seek danger to prove it
But if gods protecting you there isnt any danger so go ahead and handle the snake and drink the poison since you have stated that you need to do these things if you are a true christian.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription