Speaking in tongues

[souperman]

Since Monday, I have been at a Christian revival that I went to solely due to the fact that my friend, a devout Christian, invited me. All was well until the evening service of the last night.

I could understand people lifting their hands, I mean, it's not that hard to lift your hands up. But do these people REALLY believe that by knocking someone on the head and speaking to them they can get someone to start speaking gibberish?

Let me explain... my friend came up to me on the last night, asked me something about do I want to accept the holy ghost. I said sure, since he kind of put me on the spot and I didn't really want to put my friendship at stake and do otherwise. So he told me to lift my hands... ok, I did this, not feeling anything... put his hand on my head and started talking: Please, Jesus, deliver this person, oh father please let the holy ghost speak through him. Nothing happened. Nothing at all... No "burst of fire throughout my body," no speaking another language... I saw people fall over... I can assume why, my friend was pushing me on the forehead backwards... Hmm, now someone being passive would fall over too, wouldn't they? Not putting up resistance? The first day I heard people talking in tongues my friend told me they were all speaking the same language... HA! Everyone was saying their own gibberish...

Abongaba abongaba hai was the phrase repeated by the scary lady who led the revival and told everyone to go start a crusade against public schools (Denounce evolution and Harry Potter! Go put a Bible in everyone's hand and speak the word!)... and everyone was just saying their own gibberish... But to the point...

Do these people really believe that a spirit is speaking through them? Or is what I said really true, that everyone is just copying other people?

Thank you for your time reading this post.

(P.S. - Anyone have a link of something that I could use as ammo against the New Testament God? If a Christian says something about the Old Testament, I can usually refute him and say how it's made up and superstitious... but the New Testament God and Jesus is a little harder since he's all about love... still superstitous, but harder to convince Christians)

[King Rat]

Tuphlegm Grdlfumpf...

[emotional]

"Abongaba abongaba hai"? Sounds like a pygmy chant to me...

[Mageth]

Do these people really believe that a spirit is speaking through them?

Yes, sadly they do. Even if it comes out, as it often does, as something like "Dee dee dee dee dee...<sob>....dee dee dee...<sob>...". Apparently the spirit has a limited vocabulary, and is rather a sad sort of fellow.

[ex-xian]

Well, I'm a former tongue-talking, prophecying, falling in the floor and shaking, pentecostal. I even went to the pentecostal mecca brownsville assembly of god, home of the Brownesville Revival (TM); and I attended the revival's bible college, brownsville revival school of ministry, home of God's Chosen Army (TM).

They really do believe that the holy ghost is speaking through them. 1 corinthins 12-14 gives the biblical explanation for what happens. Also, they believe that by putting their hands on your body (usually your head) that they can "impart" the holy ghost to you.

But did you friend think that you were a xian? The only movement that tries to get non-xians baptized in the holy ghost are the propenents of the "Alpha" teachings. But they are very low profile and non-pressure. A real "seeker sensitive" bunch.

If you have any more questions, let me know. I was a great apologist for the pentecostal movement before I realized how ridiculous it all was.

[souperman]

Ex-Xian -

What was it like when you started speaking in tongues? Did you yourself believe that something was happening when you were a Christian?

And well, I'm currently in the stage of my life where I'm questioning my religious beliefs. Me, the Christian friend, and two non-churchgoer friends went... I was the only one that actively went to Church. But I haven't been going as consistantly since I found these forums and realized that a bunch of the Christian philosophy was nonsense. My Christian friend still thought I was a Christian. But I really had it in me that if anything was out there, any god at all, that this would be it... If there wasn't proof at this camp, then it *was* just nonsense. I promised that to myself... and when my Christian friend came to me and asked if I wanted the holy ghost... I said yes, and opened myself up waiting for something to happen.

Nothing.

Nothing at all.

Oh well.

[Mageth]

Well, I'm a former tongue-talking, prophecying, falling in the floor and shaking, pentecostal. I even went to the pentecostal mecca brownsville assembly of god, home of the Brownesville Revival (TM); and I attended the revival's bible college, brownsville revival school of ministry, home of God's Chosen Army (TM).

I'm a former AG too (the denom I was raised in), as well as a former Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and non-denom. Fortunately, the AG church I went to didn't go overboard on the "falling in the floor and shaking" bit. There was a lot of glossolalia, laying on of hands (with accompanying speaking in tongues and usually quite a bit of sweating, to try to "impart" the spirit, heal or "deliver" you from something or another), faith healing and prophesying, though.

I remember being pressured to get "filled with the spirit" as a youngster, with the requisite "proof" of speaking in tongues. It seems some considered you weren't truly (or fully) "saved" until you did just that. IIRC, at some point I gave in and just sorta "faked" it, though I suppose I convinced myself that perhaps it was real.

A guilt-inducing, terrifying experience all round for a youngster to go through, IMO.

[Doctor X]

If you are really interested in NT stuff, wander a bit over to BC&H here . . . they snarl, but rarely bite . . . and check out some of the threads and links. Also check out the Recommended Reading.

The problem with finding "Tricks to Ask Fundies" is that they are just that:

souperman: Well, explain to me why Jesus is born twice ten years appart?

RandomFundi: He was not, the first was his Jewish birth and the second was his gentile birth demonstrating he is God for us all.

souperman: Eh?

You need to know the background. Thus:

DoctorX: Entering with flowing cape which he promptly trips on No, both narratives are link to two different historical events--the reign of Herod and the census--which cannot be reconciled because we know the dates of both!

RandomFundi: Oh dear! Disappears in Puff of Logic

souperman: How can I ever thank you?

DoctorX: I prefer unmarked bills. . . .

Anyways, understanding what the texts actually say is the best way of understanding why fundamentalists are just manipulating them to support their current wishes.

As for "speaking in tongues," I believe James Randi did an experiement where he tapes "sessions" with a minister who would interpret the gibberish--he tended to interpret the same "conversation" differently each time! You might be interested in his wonderful book The Faith Healers--available at his website: JREF (www.randi.org). It explains how such practices "work."

Oh yeah . . . welcome to the forums.

--J.D.

[Milton]

So, souperman, you can only believe that a god exists if he is making people speak in languages nobody understands, noteven [pentecostals] themselves?

why did you ever believe that a god existed, in the first place? I am assuming you did believe something at one point, because you say that you are losing, or lost your religion.

[ex-xian]

Well, at the time I believed that something supernatural was happening. But in retrospect, I believe it is just a form of hypnotism and suggestion. Sometimes someone would lay hands on me and I would cry like a baby, other times nothing.

Considering that I was abused as a child, the emotional support and sharing of pain that comes with a prayer session can account for many of my reactions. I'm still greatful for the many understanding and compassionate xians that I met in church. However, much more common were the "heavy handers" who seemed to want people to display a manifestation in order to make themselves seem more spiritual.

Getting back to the hypnotism aspect. In a psych 101 class, the prof did a group hypnotic induction. I participated and, to make a long story short, on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being non-hynotisable (sp?) and 10 be highly hypotizable, I would be about a 4.5. That would correlate with my experience with pentecostal phenomona. In the churches you'll always have the groups that always react, those that react sometimes, and those that really want feel something, but never do.

I congragulate you on questioning your religion. I'm a firm believer that the outcome isn't nearly as important as the journey. Whatever you eventual decision, I'm sure you'll be welcome here...as long as you don't turn into a fundy jerk. ;) I, myself, could best be described as an agnostic-fideist-panentheist. Needless to say, I don't care for labels. :D

Hope you decide to hang around for awhile. When I first got here, I was in a very similiar position as yourself. In fact, my handle used to be xian-seeker. That is, I was a Christian seeking the truth. Eventually, the problems with xianity become to big and I formally requested a name change. The vast majority of the posters here are thoughtful, kind, intelligent people. Personal attacks and flames aren't allowed, and are dealt with quickly by the mods However, as Doctor X said, they're not so gentle when it comes to beliefs. Some of my most meaningful discussions here have been those that were most intense, and caused me to question myself and my beliefs.

Originally posed by Mageth
I'm a former AG too (the denom I was raised in), as well as a former Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and non-denom. Fortunately, the AG church I went to didn't go overboard on the "falling in the floor and shaking" bit. There was a lot of glossolalia, laying on of hands (with accompanying speaking in tongues and usually quite a bit of sweating, to try to "impart" the spirit, heal or "deliver" you from something or another), faith healing and prophesying, though.
Unfortunately, this was part and pacel to my life for almost 2 decades. I congratulate you on being able to distance yourself from the extremes.

[souperman]

Well, in reply to Milton, I was raised as a Christian... Mom's a Catholic, Dad's a Southern Baptist. I started off going to a Catholic church, then we eventually decided on Methodist. As you can see it was kinda necessary we go to Church. Never argued, just went. Was the usual Sunday activity. Until I started reading the actual Bible... I was sitting in Church one day with my parents, got bored of the pastor talking about how wonderful God is.

I was reading from the beginning, I saw flaws with the creation story, but I read on, thinking "Ok, maybe it was just God's will." Then I read about how Cain went to Nod to find his wife... I was thinking.. Okay, where did this city and these people come from? I asked my Dad, he told me he didn't know.

From another message board I visited regularly I was linked to your "If there is a fire do not run" parody thing in your Humor section... I started reading around. This was sometime ago, don't remember when I actually started reading the forum for more than the humor section.

So anyway, thank you for your quick and meaningful replies.

[Rational BAC]

So this "speaking in tongues" thing came from Paul?

Should have figured. The only way to understand Christianity is to realize that Paul's only role was to spread the faith to the gentiles. Make it acceptable in ways that Judaism could never be.

And he lied (maybe a little harsh---he just made up stuff) a lot to get it done. Ends justifies the means and all that stuff. Paul is the main reason that Christianity has about 2 billion adherants today. So good for him. And maybe God even had a tiny hand in Paul's writing----I doubt it though. If Paul had any reason for being, I think it was to be used as a tool for God--------who figured we would go back to the essence of Christianity later.



Do NOT take Paul very seriously and Christianity gets much simpler. And take Revelations and flush it down the toilet (where it has been before) and Christianity makes a lot more sense to the layman.

[Doctor X]

Except for all of that exclusion. . . .

--J.D.

[Biff the unclean]

Speaking in tongues is much older than Paul.

It comes from the Pythoness of the Oracle at Delphi. How it worked was you made a large donation to the Temple of Apollo and you got the ask the Pythoness a single question. She would the pray to the God Apollo at a fissure at the altar. Recently tested it was found that a mildly toxic gas was, and still is, emitted from this crack in the Earth. The Oracle is over the junction of two earthquake faults. She, the Pythoness, would start dancing around and babbling incoherently. (Near the time the Christians closed the temple a desperate king forced the Pythoness to answer two questions and go through the procedure twice--it killed her) A Priest of the temple would "translate" what the Pythoness had said. She was speaking the speech of the gods and was getting all her information from Apollo. The paper the priest would give you was always a totally ambiguous rhyme. What you had to do then was go down the mountain to the village of Delphi where you could find the shops of the Seers. These guys would translate the rhyme into easy to understand Greek…for a price of course.
You have to remember that the Book of Acts of the Apostles is not a history. It's a bunch of traveler's tales, novels and plays that were popular at the time retold with the Apostles as the heroes. Even Paul's famous conversion on the road to Damascus is a plagerized version of Euripides famous play The Bacchae which would have been over 400 years old when Acts was written. They even kept some of the same dialogue.
So when the Apostles are speaking in tongues they are doing so because that is how god speaks to man. Unfortunately, the god doing the talking is Apollo, but what the heck. The god on the road to Damascus was Dionysos and no one seemed to care when they gave his lines to Jesus.

So, unless this Christian revival is being held in a seismically active spot the good Christians are faking it. I'd bet that they each secretly think that they are the only one who is faking.
If they aren't faking remember the fate of the Pythoness who spoke too often and don't go back without a gas mask.

[NonHomogenized]

Originally posted by souperman
I could understand people lifting their hands, I mean, it's not that hard to lift your hands up. But do these people REALLY believe that by knocking someone on the head and speaking to them they can get someone to start speaking gibberish?


Depends on how hard you knock them on the head ;) :p

The former members of those groups can better discuss with you the hows and whys (I was a Presbyterian, then a Methodist, and, later, a non-denominational) thereof.
So, content-wise, I'll just stick with my sarcastic comment ^_^

[crocodile deathroll]

Do they ever post in tongues?:confused:

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
So, unless this Christian revival is being held in a seismically active spot the good Christians are faking it. I'd bet that they each secretly think that they are the only one who is faking.
If they aren't faking remember the fate of the Pythoness who spoke too often and don't go back without a gas mask.
I never faked it. And the people closest to me never faked it. It's an altered state of consciousness; the oracle used drugs, the pentecostals (and many other religiouns) use prayer, meditation, and suggestion. If you've been to one of these meetings, you have no idea of the emotional pressure and the mass hysteria that can come into play.

[conkermaniac]

I am a former Christian fundamentalist, but I don't remember people speaking in tongues or doing any of the other nonsense that is commonly mentioned on forums. In fact, the people at my church were your typical Christians, just a bit more conservative.

[Milton]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Speaking in tongues is much older than Paul.

It comes from the Pythoness of the Oracle at Delphi. How it worked was you made a large donation to the Temple of Apollo and you got the ask the Pythoness a single question. She would the pray to the God Apollo at a fissure at the altar. Recently tested it was found that a mildly toxic gas was, and still is, emitted from this crack in the Earth. The Oracle is over the junction of two earthquake faults. She, the Pythoness, would start dancing around and babbling incoherently. (Near the time the Christians closed the temple a desperate king forced the Pythoness to answer two questions and go through the procedure twice--it killed her) A Priest of the temple would "translate" what the Pythoness had said. She was speaking the speech of the gods and was getting all her information from Apollo. The paper the priest would give you was always a totally ambiguous rhyme. What you had to do then was go down the mountain to the village of Delphi where you could find the shops of the Seers. These guys would translate the rhyme into easy to understand Greek…for a price of course.
You have to remember that the Book of Acts of the Apostles is not a history. It's a bunch of traveler's tales, novels and plays that were popular at the time retold with the Apostles as the heroes. Even Paul's famous conversion on the road to Damascus is a plagerized version of Euripides famous play The Bacchae which would have been over 400 years old when Acts was written. They even kept some of the same dialogue.
So when the Apostles are speaking in tongues they are doing so because that is how god speaks to man. Unfortunately, the god doing the talking is Apollo, but what the heck. The god on the road to Damascus was Dionysos and no one seemed to care when they gave his lines to Jesus.

So, unless this Christian revival is being held in a seismically active spot the good Christians are faking it. I'd bet that they each secretly think that they are the only one who is faking.
If they aren't faking remember the fate of the Pythoness who spoke too often and don't go back without a gas mask.

Do you mind giving us some sources for your claim? I am interested in reading those stories you say Acts was copied from.

And in regards to the speaking...I think some are deliberately faking it, while others do it because they feel the energy of the crowd.

I am a fundamentalist, but I have never been convinced of any of that garbage. In fact, I remember that I even tried to convince myself that the Trinity was a true doctrine. But I never did accept it.

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by conkermaniac
I am a former Christian fundamentalist, but I don't remember people speaking in tongues or doing any of the other nonsense that is commonly mentioned on forums. In fact, the people at my church were your typical Christians, just a bit more conservative.
I've been here for almost two years and this is the first time I recall anyone talking about glossalalia.
Originally posted by Milton
And in regards to the speaking...I think some are deliberately faking it, while others do it because they feel the energy of the crowd.

I am a fundamentalist, but I have never been convinced of any of that garbage. In fact, I remember that I even tried to convince myself that the Trinity was a true doctrine. But I never did accept it.
You have no experience with the topic but you're sure that "some are deliberately fakingn it." Maybe you should confine you remarks to things you actually know something about.

That fact that are a self-proclaimed fundy terribly mars your credibility

[Bree]

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Do NOT take Paul very seriously and Christianity gets much simpler. And take Revelations and flush it down the toilet (where it has been before) and Christianity makes a lot more sense to the layman.
If Paul is so full of it, as you say, then why did his writings make it into the Bible when so many other worthy bits did not? The fact that Paul's writings are part of the canon must mean something.

[Milton]

Originally posted by ex-xian
You have no experience with the topic but you're sure that "some are deliberately fakingn it." Maybe you should confine you remarks to things you actually know something about.

That fact that are a self-proclaimed fundy terribly mars your credibility

What do you mean no experience? You mean that just because I have not faked it, or have not been hypnotized, then I can't know how it works or anything about it?

I know my sister and a cousin were at one of those places, and she faked falling backwards because she saw everyone doing it. Sure, she was very young, I think around 11 years old. I know I have felt very left out whenever I visited, and at times I felt like I wanted to just scream whatever words, without having them mean anything.

It isn't like I have never bee to their meetings. I once thought they were real, but never really saw anything, nor felt the real thing, as they would claim. I grew impatient with time, and then I stumbled upon the Scriptures that showed me that this was all a lie.

And how can you say that my credibility is affected because of my fundamentalism? So you judge me because of my personal beliefs, regardless of the fact that I am right in my assertion? What about you, you are no longer a theist, how can your assertions be better than mine? You are no longer a reliable source, since you are always trying to come up with ways to reject all beliefs. I on the other hand, am looking to see if these teachings are true.

[Opera Nut]

Ex-tian, you missed the raving shitfight I described. I had one with my boyfriend's son and his wife, who are raving fundies. I think they are Ass of God types.

We were up there in Rectum, Oklahoma in April of 2001 and the BF's younger son who is a Goth, said that glossolalia could mean speaking in a foreign tongue, not just the religious babbling.
Well, that set off older son's wife. She was taking the laundry outta the dryer in their new yuppie palace. She started screaming about "That's what HAPPENS WHEN YOU LET HEATHENS in your HOUSE!!! AAAGHGHHHHH!!".

I should have made like a shepherd and gotten the flock outta there. Immediately. I didn't say anything agreeing with him or disagreeing with him. I just thought, "Gee, Andrew finally said something intelligent". I was too stupid to realize that there was that much tension in the air.

Later that day I tried to discuss this with Michael, the older fundy son, because I thought he had more sense than she did, and the nosy bitch followed us around. We tried to explain to them that we were not Christians, and why we were Unitarians. I told her she was awfully self righteous if she thought that there were six billion people in the world and she KNOWS what's the best religion for ALL of them and they're ALL DIFFERENT.


She told me that Jesus had made her really happy. I said "Yeah I can tell you're really happy by the way you yell at your kids all the time. I never hear a kind word towards your kids."

They didn't get it. Michael even made fun of my for crying when I said I agreed with Lin Yutang when he said "All I know is that if God loves me half as much as my mother does, He will not send me to Hell". Charming boy, making fun of people for expressing deeply felt opinions.

Anyway, the argument escalated, they told us we were idiots, we told them they were idiots, I told the bitch to go fuck herself, she hit me hard in the shoulder from behind the couch (she is blind and was flailing wildly) and I dashed out the door towards the car.

Her two idiot kids were running after me trying to beat me up.

The younger son who is tall and skinny grabbed both of them so the BF and I could safely get in the car with our luggage and get the fuck outta the fundie house. We spent the night at the other kid's apartment which was horrible (no food, no towels, no clean dishes, no dishwashing soap).

Michael informed his father that he should have dragged ME back into the house to see the seizure that his wife had and said "LOOK what SHE did to MY WIFE". Ray just said "Let's keep 'em apart". I have hypertension and I don't need the stress. He conveniently forgot that she started it, by blowing a fuse over the other son's original comment, and she was the one that worked herself into a frenzy.

I asked Michael which of the versions of salvation he subscribed to (as taken from the article here at SecWeb) and he got mad and told me I didn't know what I believed in. I also said by e-mail that Jesus was fulfilling his prophecy to come with a sword and split up families, and that was the legacy of Christianity, since I certainly wasn't setting foot in Rectum, Oklahoma again, nor was I wasting time with complete idiots such as themselves, who have not a single book in the house except The Babble.

The BF is terribly ashamed of both of his boys for not going to college and the younger one spent 2 years in 9th grade and 2 years in tenth grade and dropped out. BF has three college degrees and they just can't understand why he is so ashamed of them for not being scholars.

I avoid fundies at all costs, for this reason and many others which are quite hazardous to my physical and mental health. They're absolutely crazy and make me suicidal. I don't need people telling me I'm a worthless piece of shit because I don't believe like them. Then if I DO believe like them, then they tell me I'm a worthless piece of shit just because I was born human. No-win situation.

I was born OK the first time.
And I tell them that.
This infuriates them.






:D

[HelenM]

Originally posted by conkermaniac
I am a former Christian fundamentalist, but I don't remember people speaking in tongues or doing any of the other nonsense that is commonly mentioned on forums. In fact, the people at my church were your typical Christians, just a bit more conservative.

It depends which church you are in. Some Bible-believing churches encourage speaking in tongues and believe it's a genuine gift from the Holy Spirit [of God].

Other Bible-believing churches believe otherwise and so you would not hear/see people speaking in tongues at them.

Helen

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by Milton
What do you mean no experience? You mean that just because I have not faked it, or have not been hypnotized, then I can't know how it works or anything about it?

I know my sister and a cousin were at one of those places, and she faked falling backwards because she saw everyone doing it. Sure, she was very young, I think around 11 years old. I know I have felt very left out whenever I visited, and at times I felt like I wanted to just scream whatever words, without having them mean anything.

It isn't like I have never bee to their meetings. I once thought they were real, but never really saw anything, nor felt the real thing, as they would claim. I grew impatient with time, and then I stumbled upon the Scriptures that showed me that this was all a lie.

And how can you say that my credibility is affected because of my fundamentalism? So you judge me because of my personal beliefs, regardless of the fact that I am right in my assertion? What about you, you are no longer a theist, how can your assertions be better than mine? You are no longer a reliable source, since you are always trying to come up with ways to reject all beliefs. I on the other hand, am looking to see if these teachings are true.
Oh! You have the word of an 11 year old. Pardon me, you are an expert. And there is enough ambiguity in you fairy tale book to believe either way.

What do you mean I'm no longer a theist? I said a few posts back that I was a fideist--reading comprehension? And I don't reject all beliefs...just those that lack evidence and are ridiculous. Those like christianity.

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by Opera Nut
Ex-tian, you missed the raving shitfight I described. I had one with my boyfriend's son and his wife, who are raving fundies. I think they are Ass of God types.

-story about BF's idiot children-

The BF is terribly ashamed of both of his boys for not going to college and the younger one spent 2 years in 9th grade and 2 years in tenth grade and dropped out. BF has three college degrees and they just can't understand why he is so ashamed of them for not being scholars.
That a characteristic of fundy-ism. They hate education; mainly b/c that's the antidote to their poison. Case in point--Kent Hovind.

I avoid fundies at all costs, for this reason and many others which are quite hazardous to my physical and mental health. They're absolutely crazy and make me suicidal. I don't need people telling me I'm a worthless piece of shit because I don't believe like them. Then if I DO believe like them, then they tell me I'm a worthless piece of shit just because I was born human. No-win situation.

I was born OK the first time.
And I tell them that.
This infuriates them.

Good for you!

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Milton
Do you mind giving us some sources for your claim? I am interested in reading those stories you say Acts was copied from.


Sure. The most enjoyable place to start is with Euripides. His plays are sometimes still produced. I once saw Diana Rig in a production of Medea on Broadway. It can still raise the hairs on the back of your neck.
The play you are interested in is called The Bacchae
You can even find the Harvard translation on line at http://www.bartleby.com/8/8/ That will save you a trip to the library.
It's the same story as Paul's conversion. It's a theatrical version of a story from the Dionysian religion about a guy called Pentheus who persecutes the followers of Dionysos, the Bacchae. We know that the story in Acts is lifted from this specific play about the myth and not just the myth in general because the famous "kicking at pricks" speech Jesus makes in Acts comes from this play and was spoken by the Son of God and second person of the trinity, Dionysos.
It will greatly add to your enjoyment of the play if you read up and have a general knowledge of Dionysos first. There are lots of references to things that were common knowledge when the play was written that aren't now.

[Milton]

Originally posted by ex-xian
Oh! You have the word of an 11 year old. Pardon me, you are an expert. And there is enough ambiguity in you fairy tale book to believe either way.

What do you mean I'm no longer a theist? I said a few posts back that I was a fideist--reading comprehension? And I don't reject all beliefs...just those that lack evidence and are ridiculous. Those like christianity.

Yea, I was talking about theists who have a religion shared by more than themselves. Not those who make up something and say that they have theism.

And the point is that it happened at least with two, which means that if it happened once, and twice, it is most likely to happen again and again and again.

Also, you never told me why you are more credible than I am, being that you are a declared enemy of the religion, while I am not. Could you tell me, please?

[Milton]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Sure. The most enjoyable place to start is with Euripides. His plays are sometimes still produced. I once saw Diana Rig in a production of Medea on Broadway. It can still raise the hairs on the back of your neck.
The play you are interested in is called The Bacchae
You can even find the Harvard translation on line at http://www.bartleby.com/8/8/ That will save you a trip to the library.
It's the same story as Paul's conversion. It's a theatrical version of a story from the Dionysian religion about a guy called Pentheus who persecutes the followers of Dionysos, the Bacchae. We know that the story in Acts is lifted from this specific play about the myth and not just the myth in general because the famous "kicking at pricks" speech Jesus makes in Acts comes from this play and was spoken by the Son of God and second person of the trinity, Dionysos.
It will greatly add to your enjoyment of the play if you read up and have a general knowledge of Dionysos first. There are lots of references to things that were common knowledge when the play was written that aren't now.

Thanks for the link, I will look at it.

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by Milton
Yea, I was talking about theists who have a religion shared by more than themselves. Not those who make up something and say that they have theism.
Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean I made it up. But you can rest assured that you're isn't made up. It was cribbed from a dozen other ones.

And the point is that it happened at least with two, which means that if it happened once, and twice, it is most likely to happen again and again and again.
I never said people don't fake it. I'm sure some do.

Also, you never told me why you are more credible than I am, being that you are a declared enemy of the religion, while I am not. Could you tell me, please?
An enemy of your religion? Hardly. I don't take it seriously enough to be an enemy. And concerning penteconstal/charismatic types of religion, I am a better source than you. I was a part of it, I studied to justify my beliefs, and I've read sociological works about about this type of worship. So what qualifies you, oh self described fundamentalist?

[Milton]

Originally posted by ex-xian

Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean I made it up. But you can rest assured that you're isn't made up. It was cribbed from a dozen other ones.
[/b]

You can't even admit that you made it up, that's a shame. Talk about being ignorant.

I never said people don't fake it. I'm sure some do.

What in the world was your objection for? I guess you didn't like the fact that I don't believe like you, huh? Is that why you told me that I should stay out of it?

An enemy of your religion? Hardly. I don't take it seriously enough to be an enemy.

I can tell.

And concerning penteconstal/charismatic types of religion, I am a better source than you. I was a part of it, I studied to justify my beliefs, and I've read sociological works about about this type of worship.

What tells you that I have not read about it? What tells you that have not heard the arguments for it?

You being one of them and deserting them, doesn't make you better qualified than someone who is currently interacting with them.

So what qualifies you, oh self described fundamentalist?

You resort to mocking? That sure is an educated way of discussion.

[Armchair dissident]

I could understand people lifting their hands, I mean, it's not that hard to lift your hands up. But do these people REALLY believe that by knocking someone on the head and speaking to them they can get someone to start speaking gibberish?

Certainly in the churches I used to go to, they did. I remember going to many meetings where the people would try to "baptise me in the spirit". It's only after a few tries that one of the more - ahem - spirited members of the church advised me to speak gibberish "and it'll come". Strange thing was, after a few weeks I became convinced that I was really speaking in tongues, and not talking gibberish.

It wasn't until quite some time later I realised what was really going on :)

One of the churches I went to decided to go one further than that: most of their congregation roll around laughing throughout the sermon. They called it "the joy of the spirit". I always thought they sounded like a pack of rabid hyenas. Main reason I started question christianity.

[Biff the unclean]

It's an altered state of consciousness; the oracle used drugs, the pentecostals (and many other religiouns) use prayer, meditation, and suggestion.
The Oracle is actually the building. It was a woman called The Pythoness who used the drugs. On that spot the god Apollo had killed the Python--a great mythological snake whose myth was taken from the same primitive myths that the Eden snake was taken from.
There is a stream in the hills above Delphi that is ripe with alkaloids because of mineral deposits it runs through. When this stream hits the fissure it is turned to steam and that is the "drug" of choice.
About a hundred yards away from this spot a second stream does the same thing. But it is only fresh water and no gods talk to anyone there.
The alkaloids and sulfates in the steam affect the brain's chemistry. To get the same effect through prayer and meditation you have to have a self induced hysteria. This is entirely possible but is a sign that something is drastically wrong with the functioning of the person's brain.
To induce this state through suggestion is faking it.

I am constantly amazed by how gullible people are.
The Pythoness, lacking any knowledge of chemistry, probably did think she was communing with Apollo. The Priests who translated her gibberish and the Seers who translated their ambiguities surely knew that they were fakes.
The scary lady who leads the revival by going "Abongaba abongaba hai" surely knows it is a fake too. I'm sure when she is in Vegas spending all the money she's made from the revival she has a good laugh over it.
:cool: :D

[Biff the unclean]

One of the churches I went to decided to go one further than that: most of their congregation roll around laughing throughout the sermon. They called it "the joy of the spirit". I always thought they sounded like a pack of rabid hyenas. Main reason I started question christianity
Count yourself lucky you are in the UK. Back in "hill country" in the southern US similar churches would have had you swigging strychnine and dancing around with rattlesnakes in both hands.
That's nothing to laugh about.

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by Milton
You can't even admit that you made it up, that's a shame. Talk about being ignorant.

Hello? I didn't make it up. My beliefs are based on what I see as the reasonable positions of some of the best philosophers of religion. Just because have no knowledge outside your fundamentalism doesn't mean they're made up. Once again, a fundy has displayed their ignorance. I thought you guys would have learned not to make comments w/o knowing what you're talking abou by now.

What in the world was your objection for? I guess you didn't like the fact that I don't believe like you, huh? Is that why you told me that I should stay out of it?
No, what bothered me was that you made a generalization based upon ignorance. As someone who was intimately involved with the group you generalized about, I'm in a position to falsify you claim.

I can tell.

Good, hopefully you also be able to tell why I don't take it seriously. Because it's ridiculous. The bible is a bunch of fairy tales, he died 2000 years ago and he's not coming back. Deal with it.

What tells you that I have not read about it? What tells you that have not heard the arguments for it?

Well, your ignorance tells that you haven't read any scholarly writings regarding the subject. I'm sure you are causually familiar with the arguments, more likely though, you're familiar with strawmen. So, what books have you read about this branch of xianity?

You being one of them and deserting them, doesn't make you better qualified than someone who is currently interacting with them.
I didn't desert anyone. To desert implies that I left in a cowardice or underhanded way; I walked out openly. You're currently interacting with pentecostals? This makes it sound like you're an open minded, reasonable person. However, this:
And in regards to the speaking...I think some are deliberately faking it, while others do it because they feel the energy of the crowd.

I am a fundamentalist, but I have never been convinced of any of that garbage.
Reveals your true feelings.

You resort to mocking? That sure is an educated way of discussion.
Hey, you're the one who described yourself as a fundy.

[Armchair dissident]

Count yourself lucky you are in the UK. Back in "hill country" in the southern US similar churches would have had you swigging strychnine and dancing around with rattlesnakes in both hands.
That's nothing to laugh about. [/B]

I must say I only heard about people actually doing that fairly recently, and initially thought that someone was pulling my leg. But I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it started over here.

Whilst the UK remains - despite having a state religion - a relatively fundy-free society; they're still here and they'd love to have the political clout that fundies appear to have in America.

It won't be long before snake-handling, poison drinking, and fire walking all make their mark in the CofE :(

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Armchair dissident

It won't be long before snake-handling, poison drinking, and fire walking all make their mark in the CofE :(

Of the three pick fire walking. I tried that once years back in the Mariana Islands. It turns out that wood is a very poor conductor of energy and it doesn't hurt at all, walking on the hot coals.
It's the same as when you bake a cake. You can stick your hand in the oven and it won't get burned because air is a poor conductor. But never touch the pan that the cake is cooking in because metal conducts heat very well indeed

[JEST2ASK]

conkermaniac August 8, 2003 12:20 PM
I am a former Christian fundamentalist, but I don't remember people speaking in tongues or doing any of the other nonsense that is commonly mentioned on forums. In fact, the people at my church were your typical Christians, just a bit more conservative.


Milton August 8, 2003 01:46 PM
And in regards to the speaking...I think some are deliberately faking it, while others do it because they feel the energy of the crowd.

I am a fundamentalist, but I have never been convinced of any of that garbage. In fact, I remember that I even tried to convince myself that the Trinity was a true doctrine. But I never did accept it.

Milton August 8, 2003 02:40 PM
It isn't like I have never bee to their meetings. I once thought they were real, but never really saw anything, nor felt the real thing, as they would claim. I grew impatient with time, and then I stumbled upon the Scriptures that showed me that this was all a lie.

HelenM August 8, 2003 03:31 PM
It depends which church you are in. Some Bible-believing churches encourage speaking in tongues and believe it's a genuine gift from the Holy Spirit [of God].

Other Bible-believing churches believe otherwise and so you would not hear/see people speaking in tongues at them.

Helen

ex-xian August 8, 2003 05:44 PM
I've read sociological works about about this type of worship. So what qualifies you, oh self described fundamentalist?



A most interesting thread (IMO) just some random observations and questions (request for clarification)

it seems that "Christian' & "Fundamentalist" rather than being labels with a common single meaning are rather subjective.

However could / would conkermaniac or Milton help me understand how some one could not believe in the trinity and still be a "Christian" - also what Scriptures clearly point out that speaking in tongues is not a spiritual gift (**then I stumbled upon the Scriptures that showed me that this was all a lie.)

Helen M provides a quiet compassionate voice of reason (IMO most reflective of Christian behavior) that all too often gets overlooked by the ego driven posturing :) I have often wondered why that seems to be the norm :confused:

profession of ideals not being demonstrated in behaviour.

[Armchair dissident]

Of the three pick fire walking. I tried that once years back in the Mariana Islands. It turns out that wood is a very poor conductor of energy and it doesn't hurt at all, walking on the hot coals.

I came across the physics of fire walking not so long ago thanks to James Randi's (obviously: www.randi.org) site. I may have to give it a try sometime to show how "divinely inspired" my lack of beliefs in god is ;) Seems a lot safer than bungie jumping anyway :)

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Armchair dissident
I may have to give it a try sometime to show how "divinely inspired" my lack of beliefs in god is ;)
I would suggest that if you do walk on hot coals that you go first. And go with a handful of pennies to sprinkle as you walk.

[Milton]

Originally posted by JEST2ASK


A most interesting thread (IMO) just some random observations and questions (request for clarification)

it seems that "Christian' & "Fundamentalist" rather than being labels with a common single meaning are rather subjective.

Well, they are supposed to have one meaning only. A Christian is one who subscribes to the teachings of Jesus Christ, as a whole.

A fundamentalist is one who believes in the fundamental principles, or the practice of religion as close as possible to the one prescribed in Scripture.

But you have some who would like to say that they are Christians, despite their denial of Jesus' teachings. These may continue to label themselves as Christians, but they don't fit the description of one. Since Christianity relies on the Bible, anyone denying the reliability of the Bible cannot qualify as a Christian.

However could / would conkermaniac or Milton help me understand how some one could not believe in the trinity and still be a "Christian"

Well, I am considered a heretic among most trinitarians. So, if going by their idea of tradition, I don't qualify as a Christian. But according to the Bible, I qualify. There is no requirement in the Bible for me to believe in a Triune God--the only requirement is that I believe that Jesus is the Son of God (as far as Jesus' nature goes). There is no connection between been the Son of God and being the God himself.

Furthermore, the Trinity itself is not supported by Scripture, not even hinted at.

- also what Scriptures clearly point out that speaking in tongues is not a spiritual gift (**then I stumbled upon the Scriptures that showed me that this was all a lie.)

It was not my intention that you think that I denied that "speaking in tongues" is a gift of the Spirit. My statement was that this particular claim, that these people are actually speaking in tongues, is false. The letter to the Corinthians describes much of this, from chapter 12-14. Here is one verse,

1 Corinthians 14:26-28
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.

Since we believe that the Bible is inspired, and that Paul was writing the things of the Spirit, then the above rule must be followed. If not followed, then it is not the Spirit that is doing it. This is just one of the differences between this modern 'speaking in tongues' thing, and the speaking in tongues of the Bible.

The greatest problem here is that speaking in tongues is supposed to edify, and it only edifies when there is understanding--which comes by way of interpretation. Paul also wrote that no more than one should speak at a time, and only two or three per meeting. How many do you think do it in a charismatic meeting? All do it. Yet, no interpretation. Some will argue that this only applies if they have a message to give. But the Scripture also says what happens if there is no one to interpret a message...keep it to yourself!

Anyway, this is just a couple of the problems I have with this form of speaking in tongues. I don't doubt that there could be some legitimate speakers, somewhere in the world. But so far, the ones I have encountered have been false.

EDIT: I just wanted to clarify that part where I say "somewhere" above. I do not believe this particular speaking in tongues (of the Chrismatics), but maybe there is some other group, not part of the Word of Faith/Charismatic/Pentecostal movement, that actually practices speaking in tongues (the one spoken of in the Bible).

[Doctor X]

. . . in the southern US similar churches would have had you swigging strychnine and dancing around with rattlesnakes in both hands.
That's nothing to laugh about.


"Here, at the Third Church of the Holy Roller Christ, we know that only the unbelievers need to fear!

Granted, it seems that a lot of our flock have turned out to be unbelievers--currently 8 dead, 13 wounded, and 4 missing-but presumed ascended. . . ."

--J.D.

[Gawdawful]

An absolute atheistic epiphany came to me during a Christian music concert Jesus freak rally type event when the close friend I went there with began speaking in tongues using the same fake Spanish words I'd heard him use before when he was joking around mimicking that foreign language. Up to that point, I was probably as fully indoctrinated in Southern Baptist Paulism as a 16 year old can be, however, this event was Methodist, rather than SBC. At that moment, it dawned on me, they're all faking it, even the ones that delude themselves into believing they're not. There seemed to be some serious trance-like state most people there were in at the time. I know what they felt because I'd felt it just moments before, kind of a connectedness, a feeling of belonging, of well-being, brought on by words and song, which I now believe are used in a certain rhythm which induces this state of mind. Listen to TV evangelists, they all sound so similar in terms of rhythm and cadence, almost a sing-song lilt that can be pretty hypnotic. I wonder if they teach this at seminary, or is it just imitated.

Thank you Jesus freaks for your glossolalia, you led me right to atheism.

Warren in Oklahoma, near Tulsa, the Buckle of the Bible Belt (TM)

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by warrenly
An absolute atheistic epiphany came to me during a Christian music concert Jesus freak rally type event when the close friend I went there with began speaking in tongues using the same fake Spanish words I'd heard him use before when he was joking around mimicking that foreign language. Up to that point, I was probably as fully indoctrinated in Southern Baptist Paulism as a 16 year old can be, however, this event was Methodist, rather than SBC. At that moment, it dawned on me, they're all faking it, even the ones that delude themselves into believing they're not. There seemed to be some serious trance-like state most people there were in at the time. I know what they felt because I'd felt it just moments before, kind of a connectedness, a feeling of belonging, of well-being, brought on by words and song, which I now believe are used in a certain rhythm which induces this state of mind. Listen to TV evangelists, they all sound so similar in terms of rhythm and cadence, almost a sing-song lilt that can be pretty hypnotic. I wonder if they teach this at seminary, or is it just imitated.

Thank you Jesus freaks for your glossolalia, you led me right to atheism.

Warren in Oklahoma, near Tulsa, the Buckle of the Bible Belt (TM)
I think this is a good summation of supernatural manifestations. But I would say that it's all fake, rather than saying that they are all faking it. To me, "faking it" implies consciously trying to decieve someone. I think that the vast majority actually think that something supernatural is happening.

Some really flaky groups sing the same chorus over and over for hours at a time, accompanied by "mood" music. I know b/c I visited some of these place when I was a seeker. The feelings would be identical, in some cases, to what I feel when I've taken narcotic medicines. I think that people vastly underestimate the ability of the mind to affect the body, and the power of suggestion.

[JEST2ASK]

Originally posted by Milton
Well, they are supposed to have one meaning only. A Christian is one who subscribes to the teachings of Jesus Christ, as a whole.

A fundamentalist is one who believes in the fundamental principles, or the practice of religion as close as possible to the one prescribed in Scripture.

But you have some who would like to say that they are Christians, despite their denial of Jesus' teachings. These may continue to label themselves as Christians, but they don't fit the description of one. **Since Christianity relies on the Bible, anyone denying the reliability of the Bible cannot qualify as a Christian.

Well, I am considered a heretic among most trinitarians. So, if going by their idea of tradition, I don't qualify as a Christian. But according to the Bible, I qualify. There is no requirement in the Bible for me to believe in a Triune God--the only requirement is that I believe that Jesus is the Son of God (as far as Jesus' nature goes). There is no connection between been the Son of God and being the God himself.

Furthermore, the Trinity itself is not supported by Scripture, not even hinted at.


Thanks for the additional input ... However

John 1-3 : In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him. nothing was made that was made [emphasis mine].

This and other such issues further convince me that "Doctrine" is subjective ... even if one "assumes" the validity of the Bible

I also want to thank you for the depth of explaination RE Speaking in tongues

:notworthy :notworthy

[JEST2ASK]

Originally posted by ex-xian
I think this is a good summation of supernatural manifestations. <<< Skip >>>>
I think that the vast majority actually think that something supernatural is happening.

<<< skip >>>

I think that people vastly underestimate the ability of the mind to affect the body, and the power of suggestion.

True That :cool:

[JEST2ASK]

Originally posted by Doctor X
"Here, at the Third Church of the Holy Roller Christ, we know that only the unbelievers need to fear!

Granted, it seems that a lot of our flock have turned out to be unbelievers--currently 8 dead, 13 wounded, and 4 missing-but presumed ascended. . . ."

--J.D.

:cool: :cool: :D

* but presumed ascended *

[Opera Nut]

Yeah, Warren, I feel for ya. This shitfight I described happened in Tulsa and BF had to get the hell outta there, he was too bright to be able to stand it so he left the cow and the two kids b/c she refused to leave Mommy. Actually it was in a new yuppie palace in Broken Arrow. If I never go back there it will be way too soon.....

One thing that amazed me is that they don't seem to have any liberal protestants up there. The Methodists up there were fundies, and the U of Tulsa, which is supposedly Presbyterian, had a fundie physics dept, according to the BF who got his Masters degree there. When even the Presbyterians are fruitcakes they got a real problem.

I got my BA from a Presbyterian school in Texas (Trinity University) and got an excellent education, including some very non-doctrinal and interesting religion courses.

[souperman]

Hi again all, just replying to thank you for your explanation and history on the speaking in tongues.

The history about the topic is interesting, especially the fact that it dates back to the time of the Oracles. So does this mean that Paul was just copying a earlier form of communication with the gods, and using it for his own version of beliefs?

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by souperman
So does this mean that Paul was just copying a earlier form of communication with the gods, and using it for his own version of beliefs?

No, Paul may very well be historic. The author who was writing these stories used pieces from several different Hellenistic religions to make christianity. There is really nothing original, not even the title "Christ."

[Opera Nut]

Milton, if you don't believe in the Trinity, then you are a Unitarian Christian. There is a subgroup of the Unitarian Universalist denomination of Boston that is called the Association of U-U Christians, or something like that.

The main denominational website is www.uua.org/

There are several subgroups of Unitarian Universalists. "Universalist" means believing in Universal Salvation. Both these concepts were started by Michael Servetus of Transylvania in the 1500s. He wrote indignant letters to John Calvin about this, whereupon Calvin invited him to Geneva for a debate and promptly barbecued him at the stake with green wood, so it would be slow and painful.

The U-U Christians are at one end of the U-U spectrum, and at the other end is CUUPS (Covenant of U-U Pagans).

Good luck in finding philosophical company.

[Milton]

Originally posted by JEST2ASK
Thanks for the additional input ... However

John 1-3 : In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him. nothing was made that was made [emphasis mine].

This and other such issues further convince me that "Doctrine" is subjective ... even if one "assumes" the validity of the Bible

I will not go into detail with you as to why your quote does not prove anything you may think it does. But I will let you know that not only God the Father is the carrier of title "God." There are many, many more who have the title.

Moses, Samuel, the Isrealites, Angels, etc.

So the idea that Jesus would be also a divine being (God), doesn't speak in support of the Trinity. The Trinity was a weak attempt of some (not all) of the early Christians to explain how there is no God [like Yahweh], but there are other Gods (or divine beings). It was just a Jewish superstition that got passed down into the Christian concept of "Oneness." Of all things, this was the one they chose to take.

The Bible does not teach that there are no other divine beings, or as they are referred to as 'gods' or Elohim. The statement that 'there is none like Him' or 'none besides Him' is to show that God, Yahweh--the Father--is above all beings, and that He is the only Creator. If this was not the case, then the use of Elohim would have been limited to only Yahweh. But it is a fact that it was used for humans as well as for Angels, and even for Baal. So it is no surprise to me that it would be used for Jesus--after all, it is the Son of God.

I also want to thank you for the depth of explaination RE Speaking in tongues

:notworthy :notworthy

It would be pointless for me to go into all the problems with that doctrine, since you aren't even a professed christian. That is why I just wanted give you a simple and quick reference. If you really want to know the reasons for not accepting this, then you probably would be better off doing a search on the internet, I am sure you will get lots of info regarding this debate.

[Biff the unclean]

Ah yes, Souperman, the Trinity.
You couldn't throw a rock at first century Hellenism without hitting a Trinity. There were all sorts of them among the Pagan gods.
My guess to which one the Christians borrowed would be the Dionysian Trinity because it consisted of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The father was Zeus, the son was Dionysos (whose name means "Born Again") and the Holy Ghost was Semele.
Dionysos descended into Hades and brought Semele (his human mother) to heaven

[Opera Nut]

Mark Twain in Letters from the Earth, goes into God saying that "you shall have no other Gods before me".

It doesn't say you can't have OTHER equal Gods and other subordinate Gods.

Just trying to muddy the waters here............[[grin]]

[AJ113]

Originally posted by Milton
I am a fundamentalist, but I have never been convinced of any of that garbage. In fact, I remember that I even tried to convince myself that the Trinity was a true doctrine. But I never did accept it.

By "true" I assume that you mean "in the bible." Please correct me if I am wrong.

If my assumption is correct, then I trust you have maintained consistency by subscribing to all the doctrines that ARE "true?"

[Milton]

Originally posted by AJ113
By "true" I assume that you mean "in the bible." Please correct me if I am wrong.

If my assumption is correct, then I trust you have maintained consistency by subscribing to all the doctrines that ARE "true?"

I don't understand what you are saying. Yes, the doctrine is not true Christian doctrine, as prescribed by the Scriptures. But I don't know what you mean by 'subscribing to all the doctrines that are true' [?].

[AJ113]

Originally posted by Milton
I don't understand what you are saying. Yes, the doctrine is not true Christian doctrine, as prescribed by the Scriptures. But I don't know what you mean by 'subscribing to all the doctrines that are true' [?].

You seem to be saying that you have rejected the trinity because it is not scriptural. Do I take it, then, that you DO accept everything that IS scriptural?

[Milton]

Well, yes, I accept that something is true if it is evident.

[Doctor X]

That proves a "dodge," the question was not whether or not you believe something that is "evident" but whether you believe it because it is in scripture.

--J.D.

[Milton]

Originally posted by Doctor X
That proves a "dodge," the question was not whether or not you believe something that is "evident" but whether you believe it because it is in scripture.

--J.D.

Um...doesn't it mean the same thing?

If its there, then it is evidently there. :banghead:

The only thing I tried to avoid was you trying to pull one of those that, though being part of Scripture, may not be practiced anymore.

[Doctor X]

Um...doesn't it mean the same thing?

Only by your definition. That something is in a scripture, like a flat-earth, is not "self-evident," it is wrong.

:banghead:

This method of scholarship will only cause you headaches.

The only thing I tried to avoid was you trying to pull one of those that, though being part of Scripture, may not be practiced anymore.

What you cannot avoid is justifying how you can "pick and choose" between rules in scripture. If the writers were wrong in one place, how do you know they were not wrong in another.

Thus the question remains unanswered:

. . . whether you believe it because it is in scripture.


--J.D.

[Milton]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Only by your definition. That something is in a scripture, like a flat-earth, is not "self-evident," it is wrong.

It seems you are seing something in my writings I have not intented you to see.

I never said "self-evident", and I never meant "evident" to mean "outside of Scripture." I said evident, implying 'evident in Scripture.'

This method of scholarship will only cause you headaches.

It sure does.

What you cannot avoid is justifying how you can "pick and choose" between rules in scripture.

Who said I pick and choose?

If the writers were wrong in one place, how do you know they were not wrong in another.

I have not claimed any such thing.

Thus the question remains unanswered:

. . . whether you believe it because it is in scripture.

--J.D.

I have answered it, yet you seem to be suffering from selective amnesia.

[Opera Nut]

Guys, check out www.apologeticspress.org/

Article: JESUS:UNIQUE SAVIOR OR AVERAGE FRAUD?

The link was at www.davidicke.com

They have some pretty comprehensive stuff about Isis/Osiris/Horus, Zeus, Mithra, Prometheus, etc.

[Lonely_Road_Of_Faith]

Hi all,
I'm new here, I'm a Christian and I don't believe in speaking in tongues. I've been a Christian for about 5 years,,,I was raised Catholic but didn't stick with it after confirmation, as I coulda cared less about God at the time. I do my best to be logical and reasonable and to be a good person. I freely admit to not being perfect, I'm not better then anybody else, and in fact I'm worse then lots of people.

I'm divorced, my ex-wife was one of those "Holy Roller" Pentecostal types who think that you have to speak in tongues, have visions, and all sorts of other stuff. She also thinks "God told her,,," all sorts of things.

Well, not exactly,,,Before I left her she was controlling, manipulative, emotionally and verbally abusive, she couldn't be trusted, and I suspect she cheated on me. All things considered she was pretty obnoxious to be around, so I left.

AFTER I left my ex "found Jesus" (as if He got lost in the woods or something.) She started attending a Pentecostal church (we'd gone to a Baptist church before) and all the sudden God told her all this stuff, mostly how we were meant to be together and going to have two kids (with really oddball names no less) and we were going to have this great ministry or something,,,she said God told her I was going to be some kind of prophet :banghead: It was all terribly frustrating and painful for me, because at the same time she was stalking me, she hacked into my E-mail, and she tried to wreck my relationship with the woman I was dating (never mind that I was lonely.) She'd call me and harass me all the time, finally I just called the police one day.

I'd left her in Febuary, I filed for divorce in May. She bugged me off and on all summer, finally I just quit caring, I didn't want to have anything to do with God, with Christ, or with Christians.

In August I met Brandi,,,who was a Satanist. The attraction was instant for both of us, we hung out together constantly, E-mailed each other 10 or 12 times a day, etc. etc. among other things, we'd stay up talking all night, and after awhile I realized that I COULD make my own decisions and do my own thing without having to worry that much about God. Here was somebody who was a Satanist (eeeek, one of those people the fundys tell you to be afraid of!) who was pretty nice, a decent and moral person, and actually fun to hang out with. Even though Brandi and I only dated for a couple months the relationship had some lasting effects on me. I learned to think for myself and weigh what people said against what they did, and I learned it was OK to question and change.

I'm still a Christian, though I didn't act like one for a couple years and I quit going to church and stuff. My ex- of course went psycho for a while and I just stayed away from her (tho I got lots of nasty phone calls and emails and stuff from her.) Eventually I moved away, and changed my email addys and everything. So now she doesn't know where I am and can't bother me. The divorce was final in Febuary of last year.

But anyway my ex always spoke in tongues, or claimed she could feel the presence of the Holy Spirit or this or that or the other thing, she probably looked up every verse in the Bible that had to do with divorce, and she claimed she was a "proverbs 31" sort of woman (i.e. the old-testament ideal for a wife.) She tried to "lay hands" on me to "let me feel the holy ghost's fire" more then once. Honestly I never felt anything, just to be mean in a creative sort of way I "faked" a few spiritual experiences...never thought Acting class could be so useful,,,lol. But she thought they were perfectly real. Her actions of course, didn't often line up with what she was saying, I honestly think she's a fake,,,the fact that she "bought it" when I faked something makes me think she doesn't know the "real thing" when she sees it.

Anyway, the whole thing is an experience I'm not proud of or happy about. Last fall, in my belief, God started working on me,,,and since about March I've considered myself to be a Christian again. I'm pretty liberal and tolerant, I do my best to be open-minded, and I'm very wary of fundies and people who claim to have any sort of special "gift" or "knowledge" from God.

I guess the way I figure it, the actions of such people often do not line up with what Jesus actually taught.

Sorry if I'm ranting, I just felt the need.

Craig

[Biff the unclean]

Hi Craig. Ya know there are plenty of nice women in the world who are not religious nut cases. Did you ever think of taking an adult education class in a subject you are interested in? There will be women there who will share that interest.

I'm sorry to hear that you didn't lose your belief after all of that. Might I be so bold as to ask what you are looking for here? I mean you are more than welcome to be here, but what brought you?

[Doctor X]

It seems you are seing something in my writings I have not intented you to see.

I never said "self-evident", and I never meant "evident" to mean "outside of Scripture." I said evident, implying 'evident in Scripture.'

On the contrary, let us review the catechism:

M: Well, yes, I accept that something is true if it is evident.

Moi: That proves a "dodge," the question was not whether or not you believe something that is "evident" but whether you believe it because it is in scripture.

M: Um...doesn't it mean the same thing?

If its there, then it is evidently there.

good, and given the response above then we return to the question:

. . . whether you believe it because it is in scripture.

to which we then receive the petulent protest:

I have answered it, yet you seem to be suffering from selective amnesia.

Argumentum ad hominem aside, then we can conclude:

1. He supports child sacrifice.
2. He believes Junior was born twice and roughly ten years appart.
3. He supports the massacre of women, children, and infants . . . not to mention oxen, sheep. . . .
4. The Earth is flat.

For, in response to:

Moi: What you cannot avoid is justifying how you can "pick and choose" between rules in scripture.

he responded:

Who said I pick and choose?

Quod erat demonstrandum. . . .

--J.D.

[Lonely_Road_Of_Faith]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Hi Craig. Ya know there are plenty of nice women in the world who are not religious nut cases. Did you ever think of taking an adult education class in a subject you are interested in? There will be women there who will share that interest.

I'm sorry to hear that you didn't lose your belief after all of that. Might I be so bold as to ask what you are looking for here? I mean you are more than welcome to be here, but what brought you?

I'm a college student, I've managed to meet lots of nice girls in class.

Actually, I post on several other forums,,,and an Atheist friend of mine who posts on a couple of them recommended here, I'm just looking for somewhere to discuss things without having to worry about terms of service that promote a particular religion or whatever.

No, I didn't "lose" my belief, nor do I plan on doing so,,,but my beliefs changed over time,,,and with life experience. Believe me when I tell ya I wasn't this philosophical, logical, or openminded 3 years ago,,,hehehehe.

Let's put it this way, I used to be a Fundy Christian who hung out with other fundies, peeps from A.A. and a couple buddies from when I was in the air force and that was basically it. Either way, mostly just peeps who thought like I did.

Now I'm a Liberal sort of Christian and I have many friends who are of several different religions (or none at all) from all over the world, and I've done a lot of things I might not have otherwise. I find myself challenged, and thinking, much more, because I learned it was a good thing to hang out with peeps who disagree, it keeps things fun and interesting.

Sometimes things happen for a reason, I think all the stuff I went through caused me to take a good hard look at life, as Bob Dylan said, he who is not busy being born is busy dying.

Craig

[AJ113]

Originally posted by Doctor X
On the contrary, let us review the catechism:



good, and given the response above then we return to the question:

. . . whether you believe it because it is in scripture.

to which we then receive the petulent protest:



Argumentum ad hominem aside, then we can conclude:

1. He supports child sacrifice.
2. He believes Junior was born twice and roughly ten years appart.
3. He supports the massacre of women, children, and infants . . . not to mention oxen, sheep. . . .
4. The Earth is flat.

For, in response to:



he responded:



Quod erat demonstrandum. . . .

--J.D.

My original questioning was inteneded to produce exactly this line of reasoning. I will leave the issue in the more-than-capable hands of Doctor X, although I doubt that you will receive a reasonable reply to your reasonable questions.

[Doctor X]

AJ113:

Thank you, actually I feel a little bad about "jumping on your chessboard"--you were maneuvering him quite smoothly. He became petulent so I rather rushed towards mate.

Please do stay, I enjoy the company--besides, it was your strategy, you dug the grave, I merely provided the banana peel.

--J.D.

[HelenM]

Originally posted by Lonely_Road_Of_Faith
Hi all,
I'm new here

Hi Craig :)

Sorry if I'm ranting, I just felt the need.

Craig

No problem.

Feel free to introduce yourself in the Lounge if you like (although you don't have to, of course). You could cut and paste some of the stuff about yourself that you already posted in this thread, to save writing it all out again.

The rules in the Lounge and other community forums are a little stricter than on the other forums here regarding what theists may say; nevertheless I don't expect you'll run into any problems with them and if you do inadvertently, all that will happen is that you'll be politely notified and your post may be edited a little.

Anyway, welcome :)

Helen

[Milton]

Originally posted by Doctor X
On the contrary, let us review the catechism:



good, and given the response above then we return to the question:

. . . whether you believe it because it is in scripture.

to which we then receive the petulent protest:



Argumentum ad hominem aside, then we can conclude:

1. He supports child sacrifice.
2. He believes Junior was born twice and roughly ten years appart.
3. He supports the massacre of women, children, and infants . . . not to mention oxen, sheep. . . .
4. The Earth is flat.

For, in response to:



he responded:



Quod erat demonstrandum. . . .

--J.D.

I am not able to debate with someone who refuses to accept his own error. If anything, one should be honest in everything he does. You refuse to accept you were wrong by saying that I dodge the question, then you add words to my own, and then claim victory before even allowing me to respond.

From what I have gathered from our previous exchanges, you don't seem to be ever wrong. That makes any real debate with you pointless.

[Doctor X]

I am not able to debate with someone who refuses to accept his own error.

Which means the individual is unable to debate with himself. I had thought he was a master debater in that fashion, at least. . . .

You refuse to accept you were wrong by saying that I dodge the question, . . .

Ipse dixit and wrong as noted above.

The individual not only dodged the question--an understandable reaction actually--he now compounds his error with dishonesty.

. . . then you add words to my own, . . .

I have quoted the individual's own words. If he dislikes what they reveal about him that remains his error. Perhaps he should think about them a bit more responsibly before posting.

. . . and then claim victory before even allowing me to respond.

I will note that the individual has dodged the conclusions from his position.

When the individual flees the field he rather leaves the other side in the position to declare victory if not rout.

Quod erat demonstrandum indeed.

From what I have gathered from our previous exchanges, you don't seem to be ever wrong.

That I am apparently never wrong with the individual does not mean I am never wrong. Indeed, a slightly responsible review of some of my exchanges on the BC&H forum would reveal that.

I consider it a signal honor to serve as inspiration for the individual. My best recommendation for his improvement is not these tactics:

That makes any real debate with you pointless.

since the individual's insists on failing to back his own words and can only, it seems, fall back on petulence, he has, as yet, to engage in "real debate."

As stated above, AJ113 performed the hard work of thrashing the individual about the field. I merely became impatient and scattered him.

I would sincerely recommend that the individual better consider his words and approach debate with a sense of honesty. In that way he may learn something more useful than how to flee and throw a tantrum.

--J.D.

[Rational BAC]

Lonely Road of Faith-----------

This really is a good place for you. You will learn more about Christianity here than anyplace else (oddly enough).

Of course you must realize that "liberal" Christians are not tolerated much better than fundies here. You will find yourself constantly being "converted" into atheism. Hang in there with your Christianity as long as you can.

If you truly have faith, none of the atheist arguments will matter. I think an inner faith, based on essential irrationality is something quite foreign to atheists------something they only vaguely understand.

Something that believers understand very easily but cannot explain rationally.

It is apples and oranges here.

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Rational BAC
If you truly have faith, none of the atheist arguments will matter. I think an inner faith, based on essential irrationality is something quite foreign to atheists------something they only vaguely understand.

Wow! If one of we Atheists had written that the Mods would send us a PM telling us to ease off.
But LRF he's right. If your faith is irrational none of our arguments should matter in the least to you.

[Rational BAC]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Biff the unclean
[B]Wow! If one of we Atheists had written that the Mods would send us a PM telling us to ease off.

You were joking about that part, Biff, nicht Wahr? The Mods are very easy on you guys. Would have gone completely unnoticed.

And the mods are not that harsh on believers either to be honest about it.

[Biff the unclean]

No, the mods keep an eye on things. They don't want us to scare "believers" away.

[AJ113]

For Milton:
You have stated that you are a Fundementalist, what is your definition of the term, as applied to yourself?

[HelenM]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
No, the mods keep an eye on things. They don't want us to scare "believers" away.

I think it's more that the moderators don't want anyone to insult, mock and ridicule believers until they leave in disgust. Insulting, mocking or ridiculing any other poster is against the rules, so it's appropriate that the mods intervene if it's happening.

Feel free to try to scare me all you want ;)

Helen

[Milton]

Originally posted by AJ113
For Milton:
You have stated that you are a Fundementalist, what is your definition of the term, as applied to yourself?

Simply put, I believe that the best source for my beliefs are the Scriptures--not what a pastor tells me, or what is believed merely out of tradition. In that, my fundamentalism is that I look at the founder(s) of the religion, and see if there is any validity in the teachings today that are compatible with the teachings in Scripture.

But I am different from most known fundamentalists in that, while I take the Scriptures to be literal, I don't believe every single line is accurately the WORD out of God's mouth. I will accept that there are some obvious typos or misprints in the Scriptures, but these happen to have nothing to do with the fundamental teachings of the religion--they happen to be mainly in the historical areas of the Scriptures. All other apparent errors or mistakes can be clearly explained.

For example, in OT times, many did not believe in the afterlife, some of them expressed these views in Scripture. But that was only because further revelation was not yet given to them. Daniel and Isaiah speak of the ressurection.

That some people thought that the earth was flat does not have anything to do with my fundamental religious beliefs, because whether the earth is flat, round, square, or merely an illusion has nothing to do with my salvation. Unless the Scripture told me, you must believe that the earth is flat, I can't see why I am expected to share in the belief with those who concluded so.

Just because Job did not know that there was an afterlife, it doesn't mean that I can't know or believe that there is an afterlife.

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Milton
That some people thought that the earth was flat does not have anything to do with my fundamental religious beliefs, because whether the earth is flat, round, square, or merely an illusion has nothing to do with my salvation.

Doesn't it? Because the same story that says that the world is flat, and the sky is a solid dome, and light was an effect the preceeded it's own cause, and people are made from piles of dust that have been blown on with magic breath, and snakes can talk...that's the same story that told you that you needed salvation to begin with.
If god made all of these things and the author of the story doesn't even know what the Earth, the sky and the stars actually are that should tell you that god was not in contact with the author.
So why believe him?
If he didn't get the things that you can check right why should you trust him about the things that you cannot?

[Doctor X]

Because one can "cherry-pick" out those "nasty bits"--like sacrifice, genocide, and Junior refusing to save good people who want to be saved.

Or, one can call the parts that cause consern "figurative" or "allegory."

Simple, no?

--J.D.

[Milton]

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Doesn't it? Because the same story that says that the world is flat, and the sky is a solid dome, and light was an effect the preceeded it's own cause, and people are made from piles of dust that have been blown on with magic breath, and snakes can talk...that's the same story that told you that you needed salvation to begin with.
If god made all of these things and the author of the story doesn't even know what the Earth, the sky and the stars actually are that should tell you that god was not in contact with the author.
So why believe him?
If he didn't get the things that you can check right why should you trust him about the things that you cannot?

Same story? You must be talking about something else, I guess.

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Milton
Same story? You must be talking about something else, I guess.
The "fall of man" fairy tale...surely you remember that one. No fall = no need for salvation

[Amos]

Speaking in tongues is when our stream of words flows over the dam where convention is normally interjected by the faculty of reason.

[Doctor X]

Well eloquent, I would have to disagree.

You can quite effectively remove the "faculty of reason" and people do not "speak in tongues." Granted, they do not make much sense, but they remain fluent . . . other than sluring do to decrease control.

--J.D.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Well eloquent, I would have to disagree.

You can quite effectively remove the "faculty of reason" and people do not "speak in tongues." Granted, they do not make much sense, but they remain fluent . . . other than sluring do to decrease control.

--J.D.

Ah, but I am not talking about drunken slurs but the complete bypass of our faculty reason at the adams apple.

Go to Zamjatin's WE and there you will find a better description of my suggestion.

[Doctor X]

. . . the complete bypass of our faculty reason at the adams apple.

Unfortunately, that makes as much sense as Jon Pertwee demanding, "reverse the polarity of the neutron flow" whenever Dr. Who had to "say something scientific."

"Bypass" at the "Adam's apple" results in a very horse voice--not speaking in tongues.

Amos you really, really, really, need to read some basic physiology books.

--J.D.

[Biff the unclean]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Unfortunately, that makes as much sense as Jon Pertwee demanding, "reverse the polarity of the neutron flow" whenever Dr. Who had to "say something scientific."

"No time for that now, I'll explain later"---Jon Pertwee & co.

[Doctor X]

"The Zintha beams are at full stretch!!"

Yet another one of my favorite "mish-mash" science lines.

--J.D.

[Gothic_J]

Originally posted by souperman
Since Monday, I have been at a Christian revival that I went to solely due to the fact that my friend, a devout Christian, invited me. All was well until the evening service of the last night.

I could understand people lifting their hands, I mean, it's not that hard to lift your hands up. But do these people REALLY believe that by knocking someone on the head and speaking to them they can get someone to start speaking gibberish?

Let me explain... my friend came up to me on the last night, asked me something about do I want to accept the holy ghost. I said sure, since he kind of put me on the spot and I didn't really want to put my friendship at stake and do otherwise. So he told me to lift my hands... ok, I did this, not feeling anything... put his hand on my head and started talking: Please, Jesus, deliver this person, oh father please let the holy ghost speak through him. Nothing happened. Nothing at all... No "burst of fire throughout my body," no speaking another language... I saw people fall over... I can assume why, my friend was pushing me on the forehead backwards... Hmm, now someone being passive would fall over too, wouldn't they? Not putting up resistance? The first day I heard people talking in tongues my friend told me they were all speaking the same language... HA! Everyone was saying their own gibberish...

Abongaba abongaba hai was the phrase repeated by the scary lady who led the revival and told everyone to go start a crusade against public schools (Denounce evolution and Harry Potter! Go put a Bible in everyone's hand and speak the word!)... and everyone was just saying their own gibberish... But to the point...

Do these people really believe that a spirit is speaking through them? Or is what I said really true, that everyone is just copying other people?

Thank you for your time reading this post.

(P.S. - Anyone have a link of something that I could use as ammo against the New Testament God? If a Christian says something about the Old Testament, I can usually refute him and say how it's made up and superstitious... but the New Testament God and Jesus is a little harder since he's all about love... still superstitous, but harder to convince Christians)

me and my goth chick speak tongues all the time. :p

[King Rat]

Amos you really, really, really, need to read some basic physiology books.

Yeah, that'll happen. I'm sure that would be ranked right up there with devil worship, Trotsky, and the Koran.;)

[Xixax]

I was United Pentecostal ( upci.org ) for the majority of my life. They are very much into the gifts of the Spirit. They also hold that one must speak in tongues when receiving the Holy Ghost.

It turns out it's kind of like filling a sponge with water. It eventually dries up on you and you have to soak again every once in a while.

There are two forms of this for them. One is the evidentiary type, when someone receives the Holy Ghost either initially or at any point in the future when "praying through". "Praying through" is a requirement for "backsliders", people who have started becoming less faithful to services or sinning out in the open.

There is the other type as well, the one that is interpreted by someone else in the service that night. That is the one they feel the scriptures quoted above is referring to when limiting it to two or three persons per service.

They also run the aisles while praying, fall to the floor, dance in near epileptic fits, and weep uncontrollably. This weeping, it's normally an outpouring of shame and guilt, something I see now as being extremely harmful and degrading.

I was into this full force, and have done all of the above except run the aisles or fall to the floor. I was entirely convinced at the time of its supernatural origins ( the mind in deep states of meditation or rhythmic chanting can be so completely altered that you can be convinced the emotions washing over you are of external origin ). There was a point where I began to feel that perhaps the speaking in tongues was just meaningless crap, especially when I noticed I could mold the sound, syllables, and inflection by force of will. I couldn't control it entirely, but I could direct it.

This honestly is embarrassing to mention, as it is so distant from how I am today as to make the old self nearly unrecognizable. Reason won out for me, I could not with good conscious pretend to believe in something for which I saw obvious evidence against. Once I let go of my desperate need for it to be true, the entire house of cards fell apart. The Bible's contradictions, which are glaring and straightforward, which I had dismissed before as confusion on my part or a poor translation were finally accepted as what they truly were, contradictions.

My problems with understanding why God would send people to hell whom had never had a chance to hear the gospel were solved: There is no God doing it.

I had even asked at one point, if children, before the age of accountability, are guaranteed a place in heaven, why would they ever allow a child to grow past that age?

I mean, if you really believe that they would spend eternal life in heaven for sure, no chance of going to hell, just by taking them out, what parent wouldn't do that to guarantee instant and eternal happiness for them? Sure, it would be murder, but what person hasn't lied on purpose and then asked forgiveness for it later? Isn't all sin of the same quality, considering sin supposedly separates you from God regardless of the severity?

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that these services in which this type of mass hysteria, and even praying alone for long periods of time with vast amounts of self inflicted guilt can produce what seem to be real and vivid experiences of an external spirit "ministering" to you. It's not purposeful self-deception unless they come to the same realization I did, and decide to continue doing it anyway. I know some are doing that, but surely the vast majority are not.

[Oxidizing Material]

My dad's really good at speaking in tongues. He's atheist, of course, but he likes to make fun of people different than he (all in good fun) and usually whenever on the TV there's people speaking a different language he'll start going off on his own little satire of the language- fairly well, too, and for a while without any stumbles or rough spots. It's neat to watch.