Speaking in 'toungues'
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Are they bald and/or grey because I'm so stressful to be related to? Poke tongue
No because you ask difficult questions on purpose. Like this one.
Nah, I'm a lot more argumentative on the Internet than I am in real life. Most people aren't even aware of my existence, I spend so much time avoiding them.
-
You are still trying to argue that God can not be explained so any scientific argument about him must be invalid by default.
I would actually agree with this. The way God is defined goes so far out from where we can scientifically observe that it is invalid to try. God is a matter of philosophy and faith, not science and reason. Faith is present in everyone. Some people attach it to the authorities that tell us "oxygen is an atom, we can observe it through experiments. We know it exists, we just can't see it because it is too small for light to shine behind so there is no way to 'see' it." and others go with "god says don't be an a-hole. That means stop trying to screw yer buddies' wife, take his stuff, or kill him and be nice to your parents, jerk." I'm not saying we have to give them the same weight if we personally think it is drivel, but whichever side of the fence we sit on should be willing to accept the other side as having their own thoughts and as long as they don't try and shove stuff down our throats we should respect them, and vice versa.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
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.
Christian Graus wrote:
You approach it with a lack of respect borne from a desire to disprove it
I have no desire to disprove it - I desire to have others prove it, which is where the burden of proof lies.
Christian Graus wrote:
It just won't change the answers I'll give, from the Bible.
I can only describe my position with this quote: "Trying to prove the existence of god with the bible is like trying to prove the existence of Superman with a comic book."
-
I would actually agree with this. The way God is defined goes so far out from where we can scientifically observe that it is invalid to try. God is a matter of philosophy and faith, not science and reason. Faith is present in everyone. Some people attach it to the authorities that tell us "oxygen is an atom, we can observe it through experiments. We know it exists, we just can't see it because it is too small for light to shine behind so there is no way to 'see' it." and others go with "god says don't be an a-hole. That means stop trying to screw yer buddies' wife, take his stuff, or kill him and be nice to your parents, jerk." I'm not saying we have to give them the same weight if we personally think it is drivel, but whichever side of the fence we sit on should be willing to accept the other side as having their own thoughts and as long as they don't try and shove stuff down our throats we should respect them, and vice versa.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You approach it with a lack of respect borne from a desire to disprove it
I have no desire to disprove it - I desire to have others prove it, which is where the burden of proof lies.
Christian Graus wrote:
It just won't change the answers I'll give, from the Bible.
I can only describe my position with this quote: "Trying to prove the existence of god with the bible is like trying to prove the existence of Superman with a comic book."
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I can only describe my position with this quote: "Trying to prove the existence of god with the bible is like trying to prove the existence of Superman with a comic book."
Wow, beautiful quote... Gotta remember that one.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
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.
no I am saying omniscience IS knowing what every outcome WILL be. "If I do X, Y happens. If I do X, Y happens, A does B and C happens along with Y. I can change A to do E instead of B and F happens instead. D is right out." It isn't knowing anything is possible, it is knowing what will happen in every chain of events with every variable. You see ALL of it, and you can travel down each path and see the outcomes. If you have seen "Chuck" you get the intersect with all that info in your head and you can make all the connections and figure it all out. My problem with omniscience is that by the very nature of it, it is almost worthless. I may know everything, but sorting it all out and picking the best solutions would take time and a lot of power. You'd almost need to be omnipresent and omnipotent just to get it to work.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You approach it with a lack of respect borne from a desire to disprove it
I have no desire to disprove it - I desire to have others prove it, which is where the burden of proof lies.
Christian Graus wrote:
It just won't change the answers I'll give, from the Bible.
I can only describe my position with this quote: "Trying to prove the existence of god with the bible is like trying to prove the existence of Superman with a comic book."
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I have no desire to disprove it - I desire to have others prove it, which is where the burden of proof lies.
Well, you are wrong. You are wrong, because I've met my burden of proof by telling you how you can have the same experience. That it's a personal experience and only proof to the individual does not prove there is no God, only that He does not work as you'd like.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I can only describe my position with this quote: "Trying to prove the existence of god with the bible is like trying to prove the existence of Superman with a comic book."
In a situation where the Bible did not offer tangible, physical proof to the individual, you may have some sort of point. However, if the Bible says God will do things in the real world, and He does, then what BUT the Bible would be the place to look ? The truth is, the Bible defines God, as comic books define Superman. It's if these books offer to prove something exists, and if this proof is found to work in the real world, that cause me to believe in God, and not Superman. If you want to understand quantum physics, why would it be wrong to look in a book about quantum physics to understand the theory, then test it in real life to see if it is true ? That is all I am advocating.
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.