Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sometimes in a trial, for example, what is considered evidence by some is dismissed by others. How people are different about making those sorts of distinctions is one of the primary reasons we have religion and so many of them. Nothing need be proven as fact or truth, however, when it comes to such claims and/or religion.
Sometimes in a trial, for example, what is considered evidence by some is dismissed by others. How people are different about making those sorts of distinctions is one of the primary reasons we have religion and so many of them. Nothing need be proven as fact or truth, however, when it comes to such claims and/or religion.
Provide the one best piece of evidence that you feel well justifies what you think deserves better consideration.
I am curious to know what you view as solid evidence that is being dismissed by others without consideration. If you don't mind being very specific. Just the one best piece of evidence you consider so convincing. Would you mind?
Provide the one best piece of evidence that you feel well justifies what you think deserves better consideration.
I am curious to know what you view as solid evidence that is being dismissed by others without consideration. If you don't mind being very specific. Just the one best piece of evidence you consider so convincing. Would you mind?
No. I'm not going to go out of my way to provide evidence to have you dismiss it. Anyone with an open mind will see it in short time just by paying attention. The fact that you have to ask now demonstrates you don't care to.
Sometimes in a trial, for example, what is considered evidence by some is dismissed by others. How people are different about making those sorts of distinctions is one of the primary reasons we have religion and so many of them. Nothing need be proven as fact or truth, however, when it comes to such claims and/or religion.
Yes. We don't sit around like the three monkeys with ears plugged, eyes covered, and mouths covered. We've heard it all before, and at some point -- pending new conclusive EVIDENCE we made a personal judgement about the claims.
No. The consideration already took place. And, with sufficient new evidence, could be reopened at any time. But you provide ZERO new evidence. Same old you know what.
In 30 years of being a Christian I can't say I've ever seen what seemed to be an authentic use of tongues. I have seen plenty of what appeared to be inauthentic expressions, and uses that would have been condemned by the apostles.
I mean what does that tell you?
That there IS NO authentic use of tongues? - that would seem to be the rational conclusion.
I actually thought that was what you meant when you wrote this post. I thought, hmm Baptist Fundie has written a rational post here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
No. I'm not going to go out of my way to provide evidence to have you dismiss it. Anyone with an open mind will see it in short time just by paying attention. The fact that you have to ask now demonstrates you don't care to.
You said above you'd never seen any evidence.
So I'm confused by your two posts. How would you know what was authentic if you saw it?
It's a cop out to just say you're not going to provide an explanation.
That there IS NO authentic use of tongues? - that would seem to be the rational conclusion.
I actually thought that was what you meant when you wrote this post. I thought, hmm Baptist Fundie has written a rational post here.
It means I've seen a lot of people claiming the gift, but they don't have it, or show it. In my younger days I was into Word of Faith theology, I've seen a LOT of people speaking in tongues, or at least trying to. I got prayed over and "anointed" to get the gift. Didn't work.
Quote:
You said above you'd never seen any evidence.
So I'm confused by your two posts. How would you know what was authentic if you saw it?
It's a cop out to just say you're not going to provide an explanation.
What it means is that I know what the Biblical standards are. And nothing I've ever seen comes close. Real tongues means speaking in an actual language, not babbling. And if one speaks in tongues, there must be an interpreter. Never seen it.
It means I've seen a lot of people claiming the gift, but they don't have it, or show it. In my younger days I was into Word of Faith theology, I've seen a LOT of people speaking in tongues, or at least trying to. I got prayed over and "anointed" to get the gift. Didn't work.
What it means is that I know what the Biblical standards are. And nothing I've ever seen comes close. Real tongues means speaking in an actual language, not babbling. And if one speaks in tongues, there must be an interpreter. Never seen it.
Well, we atheists have never seen anyone walk on water? Or be resurrected. Or...
I don't know how many Pentecostals subscribe to this belief nowadays, but it was believed by some (and 'some' included Jimmy Swaggart and other Pentecostal leaders) that 'speaking in tongues' was a clear indication of "one's salvation". 'Tongues' was an indication of an infilling of the Holy Spirit, they claimed . . .without which one was/is lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
I don't think it's seen directly as evidence of salvation since salvation is said to be a necessary but not sufficient ingredient for the infilling of the holy spirit. But since I could pretend to speak in tongues and I VERY much doubt other tongues-speakers would know the difference, I don't see how by itself that would "prove" anything, either. I think sometimes preachers / evangelists are reaching for compelling metaphors in the heat of the moment and come up with nonsense like this. And not just on this topic.
The thing is - and it's THIS that makes this particular phenomenon such a difficult one to debate - I'm sure that MANY of those who claim to speak this alleged 'heavenly language' don't even realize that it's no more than babble!
While there are, of course, genuine fakers (or those who have been taught how to make the appropriate sounds which would therefore make a 'heavenly language' invalid) there ARE others who REALLY DO believe that they possess this gift of the Holy Spirit. Some do for at least a while anyway before they MAY come to the realization that it isn't real. Attempting to convince these folks that they are caught up in something that is not scriptural or supernatural IS NOT what they want to hear!
I'm sure that Mr. Swaggart and those like others REALLY BELIEVE that their 'tongue-speaking' is a gift from the Holy Spirit. And, they likewise believe that 'tongue-speaking' is the outward sign of an infilling of the Holy Spirit. They then extend this and claim (incorrectly) to use the Bible as their source that 'tongues' is evidence of their 'salvation'. This then, as a consequence, would mean that those who DON'T 'speak in tongues' DO NOT have an infilling of the Holy Spirit and are therefore NOT 'saved'.
These charismatic folks are scripturally wrong on a number of levels and so one more scriptural wrong just adds to the list.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
