Speaking in 'tongues'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

Cobblers, You can do the empirical method and you can be a great writer of poetry. If you say all disciplines are open to science apart from theology you are specially pleading as well as asserting rubbish.
You can have science and everything else.
You need to show now why a belief in naturalism is necessary for science.

Take some time to change clothing if you have soiled yourself at that challenge before showing why a belief in naturalism is necessary to do science.

[Shaker]

Cobblers, You can do the empirical method and you can be a great writer of poetry.

I wasn't aware that anybody had said otherwise.

I do relish the fact however that you've compared religious belief to poetry. It's the sort of thing that liberal believers say quite often, and always, I always think, without ever truly realising the implications of what they're saying. So it's nice to see it yet again. You might want to think it through a bit more though

You need to show now why a belief in naturalism is necessary for science.

Take some time to change clothing if you have soiled yourself at that challenge before showing why a belief in naturalism is necessary to do science.

No, my clothing is fine. In fact, it wouldn't even be besmirched by so much as a drop of sweat (or other bodily secretion) at describing/explaining the success of the entirely methodologically naturalistic paradigm in explaining/describing reality. That ship sailed an awful long time ago, even if you happened to miss it. It's up to you - the bearer of the burden of proof - to substantiate your claim that your supernaturalist paradigm can do the job.

Good luck

[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.

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.

Any body with an ounce of sense here will spot you promulgating an either science or religion. That is the very nonsense on which New Atheism is largely based.

You can have science and religion.

You can no more forbid religious people doing science than you can stop them using Brobat to clean their toilets because ''it isn't the Holy spirit''.

What wonderful finding of science do you need to have  believe in naturalism to appreciate?

[Shaker]

You're a few posts behind, Vlad, old stick

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're a few posts behind, Vlad, old stick

Oh the success of the scientific method at what Shaker?.........inventing the Gatling Gun and then within less than a hundred years, the H Bomb.

Both fascinating and wonderful but terrifying.

Still if you want to believe that the successes of science are the successes of philosophical naturalism carry on with your grandiose delusion.

[Shaker]

Oh the success of the scientific method at what Shaker?.........inventing the Gatling Gun and then within less than a hundred years, the H Bomb.

Those too - both specific kinds of facts about the stuff of the world. More generally I was referring to describing/explaining/understanding the universe.

[ad_orientem]

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.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the gift has ceased but we are in agreement that what is presented as the gift of tongues nowadays simply isn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh the success of the scientific method at what Shaker?.........inventing the Gatling Gun and then within less than a hundred years, the H Bomb.

Those too - both specific kinds of facts about the stuff of the world. More generally I was referring to describing/explainining/understanding the universe.

No one is arguing how good science is at, er, science.

It still doesn't help you to get from science to a belief in naturalism.

You are adding a romantic, sentimental and mystical dimension to science (with what warrant?)in order to sex it up into philosophical naturalism.

[Shaker]

No Vlad; only you bore on and on and on and on and on and on and on about philosophical naturalism.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Anchorman,
Read 1Corinthians13. It is plain there that the gift of tongues was temporary. It was a temporary gift to the apostles not to you or anybody alive today. There are NO apostles today. What language are you speaking when you speak in tongues Anchorman? Who is there to hear and understand and interpret for you. Tongues was NEVER used for a person alone. If you are speaking a gibberish language not known in the world, if you are using this speaking in tongues alone, if you have nobody that understands the language you speak, if you need a sign of tongues to tell you that the Holy Spirit is present because the Word fails to do that for you, fails to satisfy you, then I have to say your gift is not of God.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh the success of the scientific method at what Shaker?.........inventing the Gatling Gun and then within less than a hundred years, the H Bomb.

Those too - both specific kinds of facts about the stuff of the world. More generally I was referring to describing/explainining/understanding the universe.

No one is arguing how good science is at, er, science.

It still doesn't help you to get from science to a belief in naturalism.

You are adding a romantic, sentimental and mystical dimension to science (with what warrant?)in order to sex it up into philosophical naturalism.

Nope, that be you lying about what people are saying, as you do continually. Please stop.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh the success of the scientific method at what Shaker?.........inventing the Gatling Gun and then within less than a hundred years, the H Bomb.

Those too - both specific kinds of facts about the stuff of the world. More generally I was referring to describing/explainining/understanding the universe.

No one is arguing how good science is at, er, science.

It still doesn't help you to get from science to a belief in naturalism.

You are adding a romantic, sentimental and mystical dimension to science (with what warrant?)in order to sex it up into philosophical naturalism.

Nope, that be you lying about what people are saying, as you do continually. Please stop.

How else are people getting from the methodology to the philosophy except by romanticising science and elevating it by giving it a quality it doesn't have?

[Shaker]

Who is doing that, Vlad?

[Anchorman]

Anchorman,
Read 1Corinthians13. It is plain there that the gift of tongues was temporary. It was a temporary gift to the apostles not to you or anybody alive today. There are NO apostles today. What language are you speaking when you speak in tongues Anchorman? Who is there to hear and understand and interpret for you. Tongues was NEVER used for a person alone. If you are speaking a gibberish language not known in the world, if you are using this speaking in tongues alone, if you have nobody that understands the language you speak, if you need a sign of tongues to tell you that the Holy Spirit is present because the Word fails to do that for you, fails to satisfy you, then I have to say your gift is not of God.

-
Yep.
Read it...in many translations, including Koine Greek umpteen years ago.
Ut does say
"Are there tongues? They will cease".
It does noot say when or why.
And surely it is by the power of the Holy Spirit - another of the charisma - that we read and understand Scripture; as per John 15, Acts 1:8, etc.
Has this charism gone as well?
If that gift remains, why should you think others have ceased with the Apostolic age?
I'm led to believe in Jesus Christ; the same Yesterday, today and forever. Since the Holy Spirit is part of the Triune nature of God also, then the same must apply to Him.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Anchorman,
Read 1Corinthians13. It is plain there that the gift of tongues was temporary. It was a temporary gift to the apostles not to you or anybody alive today. There are NO apostles today. What language are you speaking when you speak in tongues Anchorman? Who is there to hear and understand and interpret for you. Tongues was NEVER used for a person alone. If you are speaking a gibberish language not known in the world, if you are using this speaking in tongues alone, if you have nobody that understands the language you speak, if you need a sign of tongues to tell you that the Holy Spirit is present because the Word fails to do that for you, fails to satisfy you, then I have to say your gift is not of God.

Mr Canoe
You should read 1 Corinthians 14.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Yes  Mr. Meth, I am aware of Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 14, about how useless it is to speak in tongues when nobody can understand that gibberish.

[Anchorman]

Yes  Mr. Meth, I am aware of Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 14, about how useless it is to speak in tongues when nobody can understand that gibberish.

-
You realise, of course, that there is more than one type of 'tongue' gift described in the NT, JC?
While, yes, you are correct in saying that, where there is prophesy, there needs to be interpretation - and that's why I'm a bit dubious about certain fringe churches.
But I think you'll find that there are other types of tongue described - and (thankfully) one doesn't need to exhibit the Toronto effect to demonstrate them...indeed, I'd suggest that, if one were not in control, that would be absolutely against Scripture.
I don't know why I was given the ability to use tongues - and I do, in my private prayer and meditation times, when I can't find the words but need to pray very deeply.
Presumably for the "building up of the Church" as Scripture has it.
Certainly nothing - absolutely nothing - can take away from the study of Scripture and prayer as essential elements in our growth as believers. Tongues, for me, are an added extra.
I wouldn't urge anyone else to seek them, or indeed use them. That's between them and God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes  Mr. Meth, I am aware of Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 14, about how useless it is to speak in tongues when nobody can understand that gibberish.

I think there is a bit more to it than that Mr C. However I do agree that Paul didn't think such public displays were as great as those churches who were into it were portraying.

[Hope]

The existence of the HS for a start!

Why is his existence nonsensical? 

[Nearly Sane]

The existence of the HS for a start!

Why is his existence nonsensical?

Existence is time and physically based concept.

[Hope]

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.

Is this why scientists are unable to agree on the age of the universe, on the way that the universe came into being, on the age of the earth, ...  Realy does sound like "sound, reliable and accurate".

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.

Shaker, something like the half-life of an element is, I accept, based on observation - but often on observation of something over a period of decades, rather than centuries or millennia.  Necessarily, there have to be assumptions made in any such calculation. 

I can remember one of our science teachers at school, who had worked at the JET Project in Harwell for 20 years before become a teacher, saying that one shouldn't believe a scientist when they tell you that science is 'sound, reliable or accurate' (though he didn't use those exact terms).  He said that, instead, it is inexact, open to debate and its reliability is time-limited.  He actually used the issue of half-lives and pointed out that, in view of the comparatively short period that we have known about half-lives, scientists have to assume that the rate of decay is uniform across all time, when in reality, we have no idea whether it has been in the past.  The extension of the earth's age from about 4 billion years old when you and I were at school, to the modern belief that it is more like 4.5 billion would also throw the previous calculations regarding half-lives.

[Hope]

Existence is time and physically based concept.

According to what?  Scientific naturalism?     Isn't that rather a circular argument?

[Hope]

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.

I think that the problem is that folk like ippy believe that there is a dichotomy between science and faith that is unbridgeable, meaning of course that all those scientists who have a faith are schizophrenic.

Of course, they are entitled to hold such a belief, but as they are so keen to point on this board, belief in something doesn't guarantee that it is correct.

[Shaker]

Is this why scientists are unable to agree on the age of the universe, on the way that the universe came into being, on the age of the earth, ...  Realy does sound like "sound, reliable and accurate".

You seem to be, to put it mildly, singularly misinformed in these matters. What leads you to believe that there isn't a common consensus on these things in the scientific community?

[Shaker]

I think that the problem is that folk like ippy believe that there is a dichotomy between science and faith that is unbridgeable, meaning of course that all those scientists who have a faith are schizophrenic.

Schizophrenic is the wrong word.

The word you're after is doublethink.

Of course, they are entitled to hold such a belief, but as they are so keen to point on this board, belief in something doesn't guarantee that it is correct.

That one's worth remembering, isn't it?