Speaking in 'toungues'
-
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".
What he actually said was a little more obtuse than that. It wasn't so much already believing as being 'willing enough' to accept it as true. It's something akin to somebody telling you that human flight is possible, but to prove it you have to be willing enough to accept it as true that you'll fling yourself off a tall building.
Not quite correct, but there's no point in trying to point out the difference. We've already established that God offers proof ( according to me ) and that, according to you, you're free to tell me that's not true, without finding out first if it is. I don't mind that you don't agree with me. I don't mind that you want to poke fun at my views. I just find it astonishing that you'd think that your response has any integrity when it plainly does not. It's more akin to me saying that the Eiffel Tower does not exist and refusing to accept a ticket to France to prove that it does.
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:
You dont need to gibberish away in Zen to reach salvation, you just need to let go, become unattached, and express yourSelf.
Well, I am not seeking to express myself, I'm seeking to do what God wants. I can express myself fine without Zen or anything else.
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, I am not seeking to express myself, I'm seeking to do what God wants
you missed the capitol 'S'. :)
Christian Graus wrote:
I can express myself fine without Zen or anything else.
I am sure you can, thee are many routes to the summit. Speaking in tongues is a way point on only one of them though. :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
So God makes people speak in a language only he can understand? Wouldn't that imply that he would already know what was being said in tongues and therefore make the entire exercise irrelevant? It's like me inventing a written language that only I understand, sending you a long email in this language for you to send back to me. What I would like to know is has anyone spoken in tongues without having heard about it before hand? If everyone that has spoken in tongues has already been told that God will interact with them this way and they want God to interact with them it seems likely that it's just their subconscious fucking with them. But you're right, it is fucking funny to see.
I was raised Catholic and my understanding of speaking in tongues is that the Holy Spirit came down upon the Apostles (on Pentecost) and allowed them to speak in other languages (not their native language) so that the gathered crowd could hear and understand the word of God as proclaimed by the Apostles in their own tongue or language. Ok it's a miracle ... not sure I believe it but at least as far as miracles go it makes a modicum of sense. Pentecostal speaking in tongues means that regular people are blessed by God and they speak in God's language. Doesn't make sense to me at all. If God is such a smarty pants then he pretty much should be able to understand every language not just his own (Aramaic [^]?? ). So the people listening, to the Pentecostal "speaking in tongues", can not understand a word of what is being spoken (gibberish). Not my idea of a very useful talent or miracle. What's the point other than the people that I know that speak in tongues think they are pretty special. :doh:
modified on Wednesday, June 9, 2010 1:57 PM
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
A little...nala?
Dyslexic fingers. I meant 'anal' :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Very true... Omniscience: Knowing the past and present can be internally consistent, but knowing the future is not. If you work on the "fate" hypothesis, where everything is preordained, then you can know your future actions and thus act differently. If you work on the "butterfly effect" hypothesis, then merely knowing the future makes that knowledge mostly invalid (The act of learning about it changes it). Omnipotence: Easy... The old saying... "Can you make a stone so heavy that you yourself can't lift it?" So either one leads to paradox.
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:
Omniscience: Knowing the past and present can be internally consistent, but knowing the future is not. If you work on the "fate" hypothesis, where everything is preordained, then you can know your future actions and thus act differently. If you work on the "butterfly effect" hypothesis, then merely knowing the future makes that knowledge mostly invalid (The act of learning about it changes it).
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Omnipotence: Easy... The old saying... "Can you make a stone so heavy that you yourself can't lift it?"
Time and Weight are constructs of our perception, as is Logic. Past, Present, Future, Heavy, Paradox, are terms meaningless when used in relation to God. God is not Omniscient, God is not Omnipotent, these definitions are used by the religious as approximations to the nature of God, which itself is beyond the comprehension of mankind. BTW: I do not believe in God, I am merely playing the Devil's Advocate. :confused:
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
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.
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.
That's the most fucked-up-est thing I've heard in a while. :) So I have been a Catholic for over 40 years and just a few years ago I met a priest who spoke in tongues. So every person I know who is a Catholic who hasn't spoken in tongues is not a Christian? My wife dragged me to some wacky churches before she decided to become Catholic and I saw and heard quite a few strange things! Spinning, tongue speaking, keeling over strangeness. ;)
-
*grin* as I keep saying, I didn't invent it, God did. I'm merely explaining it, and the core point is always that just because God doesn't do things our way, does not mean He is wrong.
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.
-
Ah, so you think the speaker doesnt actually know what he is saying? Hmm, that is bizare. What is the point then? As you say, surely thinking, or saying it in ones normal language is more meaningful. They could just be reciting his shopping list. They would never know. Is that devout worship?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Totally with you on this one, F_B. I'm always stunned when otherwise seemingly intelligent people reveal some aspect of their beliefs that is so completely at odds with a reasoned view of the world. People really are amazing critters. :wtf:
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
omniscience and omnipotence
A small difficulty for most gods here - omniscience and omnipotence are actually mutually exclusive. If you know everything that will happen, ever, then your ability to change things means that you didn't really know in the first place... Sorry, did I just mess with your head? :laugh:
Chris C-B wrote:
A small difficulty for most gods here - omniscience and omnipotence are actually mutually exclusive. If you know everything that will happen, ever, then your ability to change things means that you didn't really know in the first place... Sorry, did I just mess with your head? Laugh
You are mistaken. If I create a 3D model, for which I know the entire thing, than to a flat lander whose world is a 2 brane sliding through the 3 space object I created, I appear omniscient. Since I made it the way I wanted, with an understanding of how everything interrelates, it all goes exactly as I wanted it to, no matter how convoluted it looks to the flat lander, I am omnipotent to them. We are stuck in a three brane moving through higher dimensional space - a minimum of 4 space, 11 space I think is the most popular string theory. Something in a 5 or higher space could sculpt a 4 space object that is our space time. It is as they want it, and they know the whole thing - omniscient and omnipotent, past present and future are the same.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Chris C-B wrote:
A small difficulty for most gods here - omniscience and omnipotence are actually mutually exclusive. If you know everything that will happen, ever, then your ability to change things means that you didn't really know in the first place... Sorry, did I just mess with your head? Laugh
You are mistaken. If I create a 3D model, for which I know the entire thing, than to a flat lander whose world is a 2 brane sliding through the 3 space object I created, I appear omniscient. Since I made it the way I wanted, with an understanding of how everything interrelates, it all goes exactly as I wanted it to, no matter how convoluted it looks to the flat lander, I am omnipotent to them. We are stuck in a three brane moving through higher dimensional space - a minimum of 4 space, 11 space I think is the most popular string theory. Something in a 5 or higher space could sculpt a 4 space object that is our space time. It is as they want it, and they know the whole thing - omniscient and omnipotent, past present and future are the same.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
omniscient and omnipotent, past present and future are the same
A most interesting response. My post was made as a rather light-hearted philosophical comment. However, without challenging the validity of your post, it raises a couple of interesting points. Firstly, the 3D+T universe you have created exhibits random quantum events, which have driven the evolution of the universe since its origin. Your postulate requires that when viewed from a higher set of dimensions, the randomness disappears, and becomes predictable. This would, at the very least, move the creator into a sufficiently higher space for the predictability to occur. The second point is purely personal speculation, but interesting, none the less, and was the result of learning something of 5D tensor calculus, in order to better understand general relativity (just a hobby). The surface of a sphere is two dimensional, but requires a three dimensional space in which to exist. Our 3D+T space is curved by mass, and therefore it must exist in 4D+T space, thus moving any potential creator into a yet higher space. Of course, from a philosophical point of view, none of this helps, as it just keeps the 'ultimate creator' moving into higher and higher spaces, in order to create the previous creator. To borrow an overused expression: "We don't know sh!t!". :)
-
From the Bible, it was done in languages the orator did not know, but that at least some of the audience did. It was not 'worship', in the sense I think you think :rolleyes: means, it was sermons, preaching the Gospel.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Ah, and you are a Christian too arent you? I got all this from Christian Grauss, he told me that the language in tongues was given by god in order to pray and ia incomprehensible by anyone except god. You say it is given in order to preach and IS comprehensible by some. Interesting difference, and implies aquite a lot. Have to get you and Christian to battle this one out, it wil be interesting.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
RichardM1 wrote:
omniscient and omnipotent, past present and future are the same
A most interesting response. My post was made as a rather light-hearted philosophical comment. However, without challenging the validity of your post, it raises a couple of interesting points. Firstly, the 3D+T universe you have created exhibits random quantum events, which have driven the evolution of the universe since its origin. Your postulate requires that when viewed from a higher set of dimensions, the randomness disappears, and becomes predictable. This would, at the very least, move the creator into a sufficiently higher space for the predictability to occur. The second point is purely personal speculation, but interesting, none the less, and was the result of learning something of 5D tensor calculus, in order to better understand general relativity (just a hobby). The surface of a sphere is two dimensional, but requires a three dimensional space in which to exist. Our 3D+T space is curved by mass, and therefore it must exist in 4D+T space, thus moving any potential creator into a yet higher space. Of course, from a philosophical point of view, none of this helps, as it just keeps the 'ultimate creator' moving into higher and higher spaces, in order to create the previous creator. To borrow an overused expression: "We don't know sh!t!". :)
Chris C-B wrote:
the 3D+T universe you have created exhibits random quantum events
Random at our level of understanding, like you said, creator is in a higher order space.
Chris C-B wrote:
Our 3D+T space is curved by mass, and therefore it must exist in 4D+T space, thus moving any potential creator into a yet higher space.
We live in 3+T, but can create 3+T objects. I'm don't understand GR all that well, but I recall someone (Albert?) being adamant that the curvature of space-time was a property, not a dimension. A 2-d array can be filled with 'curvature' values, but is not 3-D.
Chris C-B wrote:
Of course, from a philosophical point of view, none of this helps, as it just keeps the 'ultimate creator' moving into higher and higher spaces, in order to create the previous creator.
Or, you cut to the chase... :)
Chris C-B wrote:
To borrow an overused technical expression: "We don't know sh!t!".
Yeah, that's part of what makes arguing it so much fun. It gives insight into how the brain creates patterns.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Ah, and you are a Christian too arent you? I got all this from Christian Grauss, he told me that the language in tongues was given by god in order to pray and ia incomprehensible by anyone except god. You say it is given in order to preach and IS comprehensible by some. Interesting difference, and implies aquite a lot. Have to get you and Christian to battle this one out, it wil be interesting.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
He has made other doctrinal assertions about tongues whose basis I do not understand, but that just means I don't understand them (until after he explains, then I can say if he is wrong or not ;P )
fat_boy wrote:
You say it is given in order to preach and IS comprehensible by some.
I say it, but I am trying to describe what the Bible literally says, not interpreting it, about Pentecost.
fat_boy wrote:
Interesting difference, and implies aquite a lot.
There are differences that matter, and differences that don't. The Bible, as far as I know, doesn't require us to agree on the "don't" category. You say I have to speak in tongues if I'm saved, I'll argue about what the Bible says. You tell me works are required to be saved, you might as well be talking about Zeus, because that is not what the Biblical God says.
fat_boy wrote:
Have to get you and Christian to battle this one out, it wil be interesting.
I don't think I'm up for doing that in public. I'll crush someone's argument (or get mine crushed) in public, but that is just arguing. This is a little more delicate on both sides. It won't get either of us sent to Hell, but could really piss someone off. As you are quick to point out, this isn't always rational. Sorry.
Opacity, the new Transparency.