Speaking in 'tongues'

[Hope]

Interesting that you rush to credit your God with the good stuff but not the bad stuff: cue excuses that get God off the hook.

OK, examples of the 'bad stuff'?

[Gordon]

Interesting that you rush to credit your God with the good stuff but not the bad stuff: cue excuses that get God off the hook.

OK, examples of the 'bad stuff'?

Recent events in Thailand - the list really is endless.

[Hope]

There is NO ability to heal in the supernatural sense of the word.

That remains open to debate, floo, as the medical world have steadfastly refused to release medical records of such instances, despite requests to do so by those whose records are apparently being 'protected'.

As for the rest you don't have to be religious in order to have the other attributes.

Did I say you have to be religious to have the other attributes?  No. 

I said that, as people created by God, we have been endowed with one or more of them as part and parcel of our humanity.  Therefore, the ability to heal, teach, care for, host, advise, excel in sports or academia, etc. are all God-given abilities.  God doesn't say: "She's a Christian, so I'll give her this or that ability; he isn't, so I won't give him any"; rather, God says  'this is a human being, and I'll give them this or that ability'.  There ain't discrimination, regardless of gender, race, age, philosophy, etc. 

In fact, discrimination is, in and of itself, neutral.  We all need the ability to discriminate between the safe and the dangerous, the healthy and the unhealthy, etc.  The problem comes when we abuse that ability.

[Hope]

Again you have made a statement as if it was FACT instead of mere belief, with no evidence to support it!

Only mirroring many of your assertions, Floo.

[floo]

Again you have made a statement as if it was FACT instead of mere belief, with no evidence to support it!

Only mirroring many of your assertions, Floo.

An assertion back up by the FACT you have NEVER produced any credible evidence to support your beliefs!

[ippy]

Again you have made a statement as if it was FACT instead of mere belief, with no evidence to support it!

Only mirroring many of your assertions, Floo.

It's you that's out of order on this again, fair enough you believe the stuff in your post 32 on this thread, there is no way you can possibly know it's factual and as Floo has said " you have made a statement as if it was FACT instead of mere belief, with no evidence to support it"! in view of the actual words used by Floo, if in the unlikely event you can prove post 32 on this thread is a fact, the onus, as you are well aware, is on you to prove it is so.

ippy

[floo]

Again you have made a statement as if it was FACT instead of mere belief, with no evidence to support it!

Only mirroring many of your assertions, Floo.

It's you that's out of order on this again, fair enough you believe the stuff in your post 32 on this thread, there is no way you can possibly know it's factual and as Floo has said " you have made a statement as if it was FACT instead of mere belief, with no evidence to support it"! in view of the actual words used by Floo, if in the unlikely event you can prove post 32 on this thread is a fact, the onus, as you are well aware, is on you to prove it is so.

ippy

It would appear if Hope believes something to be true it is evidence enough for him!

[Hope]

It's you that's out of order on this again, ...

Not out of order, simply stating what Christian teaching states.  If you can prove that it doesn't state what I have said, ...

[Hope]

Just because Christianity states something doesn't give it instant credibility, unless the statement it is credible, which often it isn't!

I didn't say that it did; mind you, what does 'credible' mean?  For instance, I think it was Jim who challenged the credibility of some of your statements about Christianity and the gifts of the Spirit earlier on this thread.

[ippy]

It's you that's out of order on this again, ...

Not out of order, simply stating what Christian teaching states.  If you can prove that it doesn't state what I have said, ...

That's the point you don't want to get, there's no reason why you shouldn't believe anything you want to believe, if you believe as you do in these magical, mystical and superstitious happenings that's fair enough.

If you wish to promote these magical, mystical, superstitious beliefs the challenge will always be for you, although you are in denial about this obviously to anyone else the onus to substantiate the veracity of such strange beliefs is entirely for you.

Strange beliefs, not so much strange because of the numbers of people that believe these religious magic, mythical and superstitious offerings; but it is in fact very strange that anyone still believes these well known religious magical, mystical, superstitious stories, for example, coming back from the dead or walking on water etc etc.

You do in fact try to represent/infer these beliefs as though you're talking about things that have really happened and then another time you tell us you have supplied evidence that no one here on the forum has seen, had you done so why are there still so many, as you call us, atheists, still posting here; if this elusive evidence of yours was that good we'd all be joining you, including me, with a few hallelujahs thrown in.   

It's Floo that's not promoting the odd anything you're the one promoting your odd beliefs so it's for you to come up with some evidence, not the other way around; how many times do you need to be told before it sinks in.

ippy

[Jack Knave]

I wondered how many people have had experience of people speaking in so called 'tongues', or have actually indulged in it themselves?

It was a Sunday morning feature of my childhood. Two members of the congregation of the Elim Pentecostal church we attended, would suddenly feel impelled to spout gobbledegook, often during a prayer or the sermon! It was totally crazy and many of us tried to stifle giggles, including my mother.

As you would expect I am of the opinion that this nonsense is an aberration of the human brain and nothing to do with any deity, unless it enjoys watching people make total cretins of themselves. The notorious 'Toronto Blessing' where people actually barked liked dogs just goes to prove how totally idiotic this activity is.

It might be related to what we do when learning how to speak when we are infants, but in a more elaborate way - kind of like being dumb struck, say when a young man has to talk to a very beautiful woman he looses the ability to form a coherent sentence or when in front of your boss(?). You see this kind of thing on Dragons Den sometimes etc.

[Follower of Jesus]

I have often wondered about tongues. It was something that I got a little worked up about in my earlier Christian days. Others seemed to do it but not me. It wasn't until I was a little more mature than my university self that I realised that it wasn't for me. I have often felt the touch of the Holy Spirit but it doesn't ever get beyond my control.

I find the impact of the Spirit to be in gentler ways these days. Guiding my preaching and teaching. Calming me during periods of work stress, an aid to focusing on God when this is difficult.

I have also seen a lot of strange stuff but I don't judge others. I would never presume to tell someone that their time with God should fit into my template. Even if it makes me 'sick' I have no right to condemn others for their ways of worship. The planks in my own eyes obscure the motes in others'

[Hope]

It is for people who claim nonsensical things to be true, like the so called gifts of the spirit to put up the evidence or shut up!

OK, Floo, what do you mean by nonsensical? 

[Hope]

That's the point you don't want to get, there's no reason why you shouldn't believe anything you want to believe, if you believe as you do in these magical, mystical and superstitious happenings that's fair enough.

If you wish to promote these magical, mystical, superstitious beliefs the challenge will always be for you, although you are in denial about this obviously to anyone else the onus to substantiate the veracity of such strange beliefs is entirely for you.

It is interesting to notice that you seem very keen to promote beliefs about humanity and the universe that you have no direct evidence for, ippy, relying as you do on articles by other people, scientific findings that are, in themselves, open to debate by different scientists and often based on large doses of  human assumption based on limited knowledge and experience - especially when it comes to events that are supposed to have occurred before humanity existed on the earth. 

As such, the onus is no less for you to prove that your beliefs have validity than it is for me and mine.

[Shaker]

That's the point you don't want to get, there's no reason why you shouldn't believe anything you want to believe, if you believe as you do in these magical, mystical and superstitious happenings that's fair enough.

If you wish to promote these magical, mystical, superstitious beliefs the challenge will always be for you, although you are in denial about this obviously to anyone else the onus to substantiate the veracity of such strange beliefs is entirely for you.

It is interesting to notice that you seem very keen to promote beliefs about humanity and the universe that you have no direct evidence for, ippy, relying as you do on articles by other people, scientific findings that are, in themselves, open to debate by different scientists and often based on large doses of  human assumption based on limited knowledge and experience - especially when it comes to events that are supposed to have occurred before humanity existed on the earth. 

As such, the onus is no less for you to prove that your beliefs have validity than it is for me and mine.

The wrongness is strong in this one.

Events which occurred (not "supposed to have occurred" - that domain belongs to the nonsense of the assertions made by Christians, Muslims etc., i.e. wholly irrational belief systems) before humanity existed on the Earth leave behind traces which can be, and more to the point are, not only in principle testable but are in practice tested anew and found to be sound, reliable and accurate every single day.

It should go without saying, but in the circumstances it can never be said often enough, that these things are predicated upon a methodology the soundness and reliability of which was not only demonstrated long ago but is still demonstrated every single day that passes.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Ad o is correct. What we see today is NOT scriptural at all. It was a sign of the presence of the Holy Ghost before the written word was available. We have the Word of God and we no longer need a sign. The apostles used that gift so they could speak to people in their own languages, it was never a bunch of gibberish, it was real languages that were spoken. This before the written Word. It was temporary.
1Corinthians 13 is a chapter to read at this point.

[Shaker]

Ad o is correct. What we see today is NOT scriptural at all. It was a sign of the presence of the Holy Ghost before the written word was available.

There is general scholarly agreement that writing arose in Mesopotamia around 3200 B.C.E., i.e. about five thousand years ago and therefore three thousand years before the alleged and assumed appearance of Jesus. In other words, by the presumed time of Jesus writing was already, to put it mildly, rather well established.

What was happening with the, as you put it, "Holy Ghost" for all that time?

[OH MY WORLD!]

New Testament, Shaker. I get that you are not familiar with what Christians are talking about when they refer to the written Word in such a context as this thread. Well you have learned something today Shaker. That's a first.

[Shaker]

Why does written word change into written Word [sic] from one post to another?

[OH MY WORLD!]

Cause I was in a rush at that moment. Why are you beings so arrogant and anal today Shaker?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's the point you don't want to get, there's no reason why you shouldn't believe anything you want to believe, if you believe as you do in these magical, mystical and superstitious happenings that's fair enough.

If you wish to promote these magical, mystical, superstitious beliefs the challenge will always be for you, although you are in denial about this obviously to anyone else the onus to substantiate the veracity of such strange beliefs is entirely for you.

It is interesting to notice that you seem very keen to promote beliefs about humanity and the universe that you have no direct evidence for, ippy, relying as you do on articles by other people, scientific findings that are, in themselves, open to debate by different scientists and often based on large doses of  human assumption based on limited knowledge and experience - especially when it comes to events that are supposed to have occurred before humanity existed on the earth. 

As such, the onus is no less for you to prove that your beliefs have validity than it is for me and mine.

I totally agree.
I think Ippy labours under the misapprehension that religious people don't believe in the findings of science and hold them as scientists hold them as provisional.

Where we disagree with Ippy is not what science establishes but his peculiar belief that that means God is somehow disproved by the findings of science.

He is of course a product of the New Atheism which prizes ignorance.

[Anchorman]

Ad o is correct. What we see today is NOT scriptural at all. It was a sign of the presence of the Holy Ghost before the written word was available. We have the Word of God and we no longer need a sign. The apostles used that gift so they could speak to people in their own languages, it was never a bunch of gibberish, it was real languages that were spoken. This before the written Word. It was temporary.
1Corinthians 13 is a chapter to read at this point.

-
Can you give me chapter and verse to confirm the withdrawal of the gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Church, please?

[Shaker]

I totally agree.
I think Ippy labours under the misapprehension that religious people don't believe in the findings of science and hold them as scientists hold them as provisional.

A great many, in fact by far the great majority do.

The point at issue is that they have no ground or warrant for flip-flopping back and forth - as they inescapably do - between the empirically, the naturalistically, the evidentially, the rationally-grounded and the polar opposite of all these as they do.

It's not a matter of raw intelligence alone, since there are some people who are by any yardstick awesomely clever in those areas where intellectual reach and grasp (i.e. science) can be quantified. It's about having a coherent and consistent map of the universe in which we exist, one which either demonstrates its efficacy in understanding the way things are or doesn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I totally agree.
I think Ippy labours under the misapprehension that religious people don't believe in the findings of science and hold them as scientists hold them as provisional.

A great many, in fact by far the great majority do.

The point at issue is that they have no ground or warrant for flip-flopping back and forth - as they inescapably do - between the empirically, the naturalistically, the evidentially, the rationally-grounded and the polar opposite of all these as they do.

Utter nonsense based on not only a faith in naturalism but a faith in the superiority of naturalism.

People avoid this forum because of pieces of ignorance as shown by you here Shaker.

There is nothing magical about the empirical method Shaker.
A belief in naturalism is not necessary to carry out science.

You have nothing at all to link science with your beliefs Shaker. Go away, have the existential crisis and come back a better human being.

[Shaker]

Utter nonsense based on not only a faith in naturalism but a faith in the superiority of naturalism.

I don't do faith.

People avoid this forum because of pieces of ignorance as shown by you here Shaker.

Ironically for the likes of you, you'll have to provide some evidence to back up that assertion.

What will actually happen in practice is that you'll do a Hope, and won't.

There is nothing magical about the empirical method Shaker.

That would be a contradiction in terms, wouldn't it?

A belief in naturalism is not necessary to carry out science.

Yes it is, or it's not science.