Speaking in 'toungues'
-
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:
we don't know enough to know all the things we should be asking for or seeking
Hang on, what happend to the ten commandments? Praying for no murder, no stealing, no envy, no adultery, etc etc etc is not enough? I would like to know just what god IS telling you to pray for, it must be some pretty far out stuff!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Religion tries to explain anything. It doesn't mean their explanations are grounded in science or make sense there. Trying to explain that to them doesn't work though. "God makes em talk funny." "We have no proof about it and it looks like they are being weird." "God made em weird." "... Your god sucks?" Perhaps we should just let them have their speaking in tongues and let em know that as long as they keep it in their practices, don't try and make us do it, and don't decide that someone saying "SNARFBLAT!" means "Kill all atheists!" which is a greenlight to start a crusade/jyhad/purge/insertreligiouswartermhere. I am more than fine with them being religious as long as they aren't forcing their beliefs down my throat. Christian is a good example of how they should behave. Personally religious, but not telling me I am burning in hell for not giving a flying eff about his religion.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Then that goes back to what I said before - everything else may be deterministic, but anything is possible with regards to yourself which again means that at every instant you know that anything could happen but not what will happen.
"Darn, by definition I am not omniscient because I only know 99.9999999 (repeating of course) of everything, I never quite know what I am going to do until I do it. I know what I should do and what I want, so I likely do know what I do, but I am never sure." I supposed being truly 100% omniscient and omnipotent would be impossible then. Alright. I retract my previous belief and now agree with you.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
I was going to stay out of this thread, aside from my usual inane jokes, but I just have to step in... Sorry if this sounds offensive, but I'm just trying to be logical... That's how my mind works :)
Christian Graus wrote:
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 Superman was found to be real, then there would be plenty of other proof besides a comic book. Photographs and video, to start. The comic book itself would not be proof of his existence, any more than my novels are proof of the existence of the Xen Guardians.
Christian Graus wrote:
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.
Except, as you've described (And correct me if I'm wrong), you can only receive this "proof" if you already believe in "god". So its presence can affirm your belief, and its absence can affirm your disbelief. Basically, either way it just confirms what you already think to be true. If someone actually tries to test it and fails, then the standard answer from the religious side is always something along the lines of "You weren't REALLY trying because you didn't believe" Or are you saying that I, as an atheist, would be able to accurately test this proof? Real proof would be something that would bring you from a state of doubt to a state of belief, not something that requires belief in the first place.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
If Superman was found to be real, then there would be plenty of other proof besides a comic book. Photographs and video, to start. The comic book itself would not be proof of his existence, any more than my novels are proof of the existence of the Xen Guardians.
Exactly my point.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Except, as you've described (And correct me if I'm wrong), you can only receive this "proof" if you already believe in "god".
You can only recieve it by asking for it. Yes, the proof is personal, and a degree of willingness to entertain faith is required. Does the fact that you don't like how God does things prove there is no God ?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So its presence can affirm your belief, and its absence can affirm your disbelief. Basically, either way it just confirms what you already think to be true
Not at all. I had blind faith in a non-speaking in tongues experience God, and it was not sustainable, for me. It certainly did not help me overcome the issues in my life, which disappeared when I experienced what I am talking about. That at least shows that any blind faith by which I was able to use an imaginary friend to do what I needed to in my life, didn't work for me when I had just as much faith as I did when I trusted in what the Bible does say. That sort of anecdotal proof is all that's on offer for people not willing to ask God for themselves. That's not something I decided on, it's just the way it is. I can't define God, I can only tell you about Him.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Or are you saying that I, as an atheist, would be able to accurately test this proof?
I can tell you that athiests have done so and become Christians, but I am not suggesting a cynical testing of what I'm saying will turn out the way I describe every time. Sometimes, enough faith seems to creep in for people to be willing to honestly ask God, and not just fold their arms and say 'I know you're not here'. Again, that sounds like weasel words, I know. I didn't define the system, or decide what God should require. I do know that I go to church with former athiests who came along to prove us wrong.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Real proof would be something that would bring you from a state of doubt to a state of belief, not some
-
Well, he didn't put much thought into it. I invented my own (partial) language for my novels, and it's a lot of bloody work :) Ironically, even though I invented the language, I'm not even close to fluent in it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
"Darn, by definition I am not omniscient because I only know 99.9999999 (repeating of course) of everything, I never quite know what I am going to do until I do it. I know what I should do and what I want, so I likely do know what I do, but I am never sure." I supposed being truly 100% omniscient and omnipotent would be impossible then. Alright. I retract my previous belief and now agree with you.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
by definition I am not omniscient because I only know 99.9999999 (repeating of course) of everything
An omniscient being would know that 99.999999.... is precisely equal to 100.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Alright. I retract my previous belief and now agree with you.
:-D :rose:
-
Well, he didn't put much thought into it. I invented my own (partial) language for my novels, and it's a lot of bloody work :) Ironically, even though I invented the language, I'm not even close to fluent in it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)I think someone from Star Trek that developed the Klingon language mentioned that a fan talked to him in it and he couldn't keep up once. Developing a language is hard. Learning a developed one is a lot easier.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
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.
You see this is where Bhudism or Zen is far molre interesting. It actually is very subtle, and very clever, and actually has something to say to people which is usefull. You dont need to gibberish away in Zen to reach salvation, you just need to let go, become unattached, and express yourSelf. And that in itself is a massive essay in behaviour and thought processes that are in fact very relevant in the world. Even in SW. I have worked with engineers too attached to their coding to be good SW engineers.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What do you mean?
I was just impressed with your response to Christian. Take no prisoners young man!
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If Superman was found to be real, then there would be plenty of other proof besides a comic book. Photographs and video, to start. The comic book itself would not be proof of his existence, any more than my novels are proof of the existence of the Xen Guardians.
Exactly my point.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Except, as you've described (And correct me if I'm wrong), you can only receive this "proof" if you already believe in "god".
You can only recieve it by asking for it. Yes, the proof is personal, and a degree of willingness to entertain faith is required. Does the fact that you don't like how God does things prove there is no God ?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So its presence can affirm your belief, and its absence can affirm your disbelief. Basically, either way it just confirms what you already think to be true
Not at all. I had blind faith in a non-speaking in tongues experience God, and it was not sustainable, for me. It certainly did not help me overcome the issues in my life, which disappeared when I experienced what I am talking about. That at least shows that any blind faith by which I was able to use an imaginary friend to do what I needed to in my life, didn't work for me when I had just as much faith as I did when I trusted in what the Bible does say. That sort of anecdotal proof is all that's on offer for people not willing to ask God for themselves. That's not something I decided on, it's just the way it is. I can't define God, I can only tell you about Him.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Or are you saying that I, as an atheist, would be able to accurately test this proof?
I can tell you that athiests have done so and become Christians, but I am not suggesting a cynical testing of what I'm saying will turn out the way I describe every time. Sometimes, enough faith seems to creep in for people to be willing to honestly ask God, and not just fold their arms and say 'I know you're not here'. Again, that sounds like weasel words, I know. I didn't define the system, or decide what God should require. I do know that I go to church with former athiests who came along to prove us wrong.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Real proof would be something that would bring you from a state of doubt to a state of belief, not some
Christian Graus wrote:
I can tell you that athiests have done so and become Christians, but I am not suggesting a cynical testing of what I'm saying will turn out the way I describe every time. Sometimes, enough faith seems to creep in for people to be willing to honestly ask God, and not just fold their arms and say 'I know you're not here'. Again, that sounds like weasel words, I know. I didn't define the system, or decide what God should require. I do know that I go to church with former athiests who came along to prove us wrong.
That reminds me of this[^], which is in my opinion a very interesting personal narrative by Nate Phelps, the son of Fred Phelps the Westboro Baptist Church idiot.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
If Superman was found to be real, then there would be plenty of other proof besides a comic book. Photographs and video, to start. The comic book itself would not be proof of his existence, any more than my novels are proof of the existence of the Xen Guardians.
Exactly my point.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Except, as you've described (And correct me if I'm wrong), you can only receive this "proof" if you already believe in "god".
You can only recieve it by asking for it. Yes, the proof is personal, and a degree of willingness to entertain faith is required. Does the fact that you don't like how God does things prove there is no God ?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
So its presence can affirm your belief, and its absence can affirm your disbelief. Basically, either way it just confirms what you already think to be true
Not at all. I had blind faith in a non-speaking in tongues experience God, and it was not sustainable, for me. It certainly did not help me overcome the issues in my life, which disappeared when I experienced what I am talking about. That at least shows that any blind faith by which I was able to use an imaginary friend to do what I needed to in my life, didn't work for me when I had just as much faith as I did when I trusted in what the Bible does say. That sort of anecdotal proof is all that's on offer for people not willing to ask God for themselves. That's not something I decided on, it's just the way it is. I can't define God, I can only tell you about Him.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Or are you saying that I, as an atheist, would be able to accurately test this proof?
I can tell you that athiests have done so and become Christians, but I am not suggesting a cynical testing of what I'm saying will turn out the way I describe every time. Sometimes, enough faith seems to creep in for people to be willing to honestly ask God, and not just fold their arms and say 'I know you're not here'. Again, that sounds like weasel words, I know. I didn't define the system, or decide what God should require. I do know that I go to church with former athiests who came along to prove us wrong.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Real proof would be something that would bring you from a state of doubt to a state of belief, not some
Just to chime in because I am a consumate jerk...
Christian Graus wrote:
Again, that God does not play by your rules, does not prove He does not exist.
It just proves he's a jerk. ;P
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Yeah, Ravels a clever bugger alright. :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
You take that back! :suss:
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
by definition I am not omniscient because I only know 99.9999999 (repeating of course) of everything
An omniscient being would know that 99.999999.... is precisely equal to 100.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Alright. I retract my previous belief and now agree with you.
:-D :rose:
I can admit to being wrong. :)
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Just to chime in because I am a consumate jerk...
Christian Graus wrote:
Again, that God does not play by your rules, does not prove He does not exist.
It just proves he's a jerk. ;P
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
*grin* well, you're welcome to your opinion. It's also possible that, if He is God, that the way He does things, just plain does not conform to our rules.
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 can tell you that athiests have done so and become Christians, but I am not suggesting a cynical testing of what I'm saying will turn out the way I describe every time. Sometimes, enough faith seems to creep in for people to be willing to honestly ask God, and not just fold their arms and say 'I know you're not here'. Again, that sounds like weasel words, I know. I didn't define the system, or decide what God should require. I do know that I go to church with former athiests who came along to prove us wrong.
That reminds me of this[^], which is in my opinion a very interesting personal narrative by Nate Phelps, the son of Fred Phelps the Westboro Baptist Church idiot.
Well, that looks interesting. The Phelps are obviously all morons, and I'm interested to read what his son has to say about life in that retarded excuse for a church, when I have time.
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.
-
fat_boy wrote:
since you have stated that you need to do these things if you are a true christian.
I said no such thing. You are being deliberately obtuse, and, in this case, a liar. I'll follow Jesus' example and not yours. You are saying exactly what Satan said to Jesus, and my response will not be any different. I'm not sure why I'm even playing this game with you, you're plainly not listening to me, or considering anything I say, beyond looking for ways to twist it to suit your views.
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:
fat_boy wrote: since you have stated that you need to do these things if you are a true christian. I said no such thing
So who gave you the right of choice out of: 1) speaking in tongues 2) handling snakes 3) drinking poison or was it by common consent? And if so how about those snake handlers who have agreed that that is the true mark of a christian, and that tongue talking is nothing? Of course if it wasnt you who chose then the three must list as equally important in which case I didnt lie. :)
Christian Graus wrote:
You are saying exactly what Satan said to Jesus
Thankyou, that is quite a compliment! :)
Christian Graus wrote:
considering anything I say, beyond looking for ways to twist it to suit your views.
I want to know how YOU decided that tonging is the true mark whereas snakes and poison are not since, it appears ayll three are equally stressed in the bible.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
You take that back! :suss:
-
Well, that looks interesting. The Phelps are obviously all morons, and I'm interested to read what his son has to say about life in that retarded excuse for a church, when I have time.
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.
Yeah, it's fairly lengthy, but totally worth it.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
fat_boy wrote: since you have stated that you need to do these things if you are a true christian. I said no such thing
So who gave you the right of choice out of: 1) speaking in tongues 2) handling snakes 3) drinking poison or was it by common consent? And if so how about those snake handlers who have agreed that that is the true mark of a christian, and that tongue talking is nothing? Of course if it wasnt you who chose then the three must list as equally important in which case I didnt lie. :)
Christian Graus wrote:
You are saying exactly what Satan said to Jesus
Thankyou, that is quite a compliment! :)
Christian Graus wrote:
considering anything I say, beyond looking for ways to twist it to suit your views.
I want to know how YOU decided that tonging is the true mark whereas snakes and poison are not since, it appears ayll three are equally stressed in the bible.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
So who gave you the right of choice out of: 1) speaking in tongues 2) handling snakes 3) drinking poison or was it by common consent?
I explained this already. If you can't use common sense, or read what I said, then there's no point in me restating it.
fat_boy wrote:
And if so how about those snake handlers who have agreed that that is the true mark of a christian, and that tongue talking is nothing?
I can't help if they are illiterate, either. That's not my fault, nor is it Gods.
fat_boy wrote:
Thankyou, that is quite a compliment!
I did not expect you to be insulted.
fat_boy wrote:
I want to know how YOU decided that tonging is the true mark whereas snakes and poison are not since, it appears ayll three are equally stressed in the bible.
This is plain not true, unless the whole Bible consists of the last chapter of Mark. I explained this already.
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.
-
*grin* well, you're welcome to your opinion. It's also possible that, if He is God, that the way He does things, just plain does not conform to our rules.
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.
lol, no opinion, just being funny. ;) You are talking to a former Catholic, NOTHING anyone in this thread has said (except the omniscience stuff) has been new, all that impressive, or informative to me. I have heard almost all these arguments before verbatim, or at least close enough to not surprise me. Hell, I actually heard someone use the superman thing before in a debate. (He seems to be the best analogy since he is a god by the definitions of the older civilizations) You are a good guy, I have no problems with you being religious, your choice in it, or how you describe/live/defend your faith. I just like being an ass. ;)
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.