Evidence for God from Science

Philip, I think you just like to argue. I don't. I honestly can't follow your logic and conclusions. God bless you.

klei4530 wrote:Philip, I think you just like to argue. I don't. I honestly can't follow your logic and conclusions. God bless you.

I would disagree with that.. I think Philip makes some credible observations.

klei4530 wrote:Philip, I think you just like to argue. I don't. I honestly can't follow your logic and conclusions. God bless you.

I think there is a big difference between argumentative talk and a discussion. As far as I can see Phillip bought up some good points that are worth considering, but of course you can dismiss them by saying he is being argumentative.

klei4530 wrote:Philip, I think you just like to argue. I don't. I honestly can't follow your logic and conclusions. God bless you.

klei4530 wrote:Philip, I think you just like to argue. I don't. I honestly can't follow your logic and conclusions. God bless you.

I would disagree with that.. I think Philip makes some credible observations. [/quote

What?!!! ONLY "some credible observations?" Hey, I resemble that!

Example: "Sweetheart, does this dress make my butt look big?" "Oh, NO, dear - it is quite flattering and slimming to your lithe figure."

Hey, I'm no fool!

Wow, now this thread's last posts are well over a year old. I'm amazed at how intense I can sometimes be But now the issue is fresh for me with close family that went from (unsaved / I know many ARE saved) Catholics to becoming Baptists to recently, Pentecostal Holiness.

I think it's threads like this, and because people disagreed with his beliefs, that PeteSinCa left.

The disagreement became too personal, IMO.

Just because I strongly disagree with him, that doesn't mean I don't consider him a brother in Christ. Tongues, is a secondary belief(unless your one of those who believes tongues is THE sign of being saved).

It's a shame that Pete couldn't disagree with others without taking it personally. He has a lot to offer this forum.

Rick: Just because I strongly disagree with him, that doesn't mean I don't consider him a brother in Christ. Tongues, is a secondary belief(unless your one of those who believes tongues is THE sign of being saved).

It's a shame that Pete couldn't disagree with others without taking it personally. He has a lot to offer this forum.

I totally agree! I feel just as perplexed about all of that as I ever did. But as I look back over my posts on this thread, I was totally honest about what I think can be understood about it, but I was most definitely holding withering fire to people asserting what I find to be questionable things. It's just that things I see as mystical and that I don't appear to have the ability to ascertain the origins or truth of, I will always be extremely skeptical and careful of. I just know the issue is both (yes) secondary and divisive. It's right up there with the Catholic/Protestant and Reformed/Not Reformed issues. I do hate that Pete left - I didn't realize that. I don't recall it really coming up but in this thread (maybe another?).

Actually, Pete stayed until the following August, so I don't think he left due to disagreements over sign gifts.

Philip wrote:

Rick: Just because I strongly disagree with him, that doesn't mean I don't consider him a brother in Christ. Tongues, is a secondary belief(unless your one of those who believes tongues is THE sign of being saved).

It's a shame that Pete couldn't disagree with others without taking it personally. He has a lot to offer this forum.

I totally agree! I feel just as perplexed about all of that as I ever did. But as I look back over my posts on this thread, I was totally honest about what I think can be understood about it, but I was most definitely holding withering fire to people asserting what I find to be questionable things. It's just that things I see as mystical and that I don't appear to have the ability to ascertain the origins or truth of, I will always be extremely skeptical and careful of. I just know the issue is both (yes) secondary and divisive. It's right up there with the Catholic/Protestant and Reformed/Not Reformed issues. I do hate that Pete left - I didn't realize that. I don't recall it really coming up but in this thread (maybe another?).

Actually, Pete stayed until the following August, so I don't think he left due to disagreements over sign gifts.

It was shortly after this thread, that he left. Although I was very opinionated, he misunderstood what I was saying.

He mistakingly thought I was calling all Vineyard church members "wackos". When in reality, I actually said this:

Bad news! He pastors a vineyard church. Among other problems, vineyard churches are associated with the Toronto blessing. He's into false signs and wonders. A huge deception in the church.

My advice...pray for discernment. And stay far away from this false teacher.

Among other churches, my mom was involved in a Vineyard Church. So, it's a touchy subject for me.

You just gave up the gift God gave you.Tongues is specifically mentioned in 1st Corinthians as one of the gifts of the Spirit,both tongues and the interpretation of tongues.This is why we should acknowledge speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Sprit,it makes no difference that this gift can and is abused,it does not make it not a gift of the Holy Spirit just because tongues can be abused,the other gifts can be abused too.You may not have the gift of tongues but you should not discount them just because you don't have the gift of tongues.

Read 1st Corinthians 12:4-11 and don't ignore it.Apostle Paul acknowledged that he spoke with tongues 1st Corinthians 14:18 and we can too.

nuthajason wrote:long before the strangfire conference I have been worried about the whole tongue's issue as I just cannot see a good mandate for it in scripture. when I told my close friends I had decided to stop talking in tongues I got an interesting range of responses. from pity to shunning. so I made a video explaining my biblical standpoint in the hope that someone would show me I was wrong - if indeed I was wrong.
http://youtu.be/eukKzfW0jrE

then i made a follow up responding to people's questions and comments here:
http://youtu.be/HF2LwTVOZsI

after this process I am even more convinced that tongues aren't for today. no one online or in person has been able to sit with a bible and give me a good hermeneutical exposition to justify this practice which I have observed in other world religions and which I believe is a potentially dangerous practice. I would challenge anyone here to give me good counter arguments (no tiny out of context proof texts either please).

God bless
J

p.s: I also made a video about the dangers of Christian fellowship. essential though it is - it is not without its dangers and all must approach with caution: http://youtu.be/i2VY3843HUI

I don't understand why you were shunned because you decided not to speak in tongues.Tongues are often abused and in this context it would be better to not speak in tongues,if they are not used properly then it should not be done.

I've been to churches where they were not used properly and was abused however I've been in church services where they were done properly like 1st Corinthians 14 tells and it is a good thing.I think that most of the time even the people who speak in tongues do not even know what it is for which is sad and they are speaking in tongues for nothing without understanding and it is useless.
But when tongues are used properly you get revelations from God that you will not get from normal prayer.

A person who has the gift of tongues is useless without the gift of interpretation of tongues also,and without both? You will not know what you are praying and saying in tongues and neither will anybody else.But when you speak in tongues and then it is interpreted what you just said back to you,a lot of times it is a revelation from God.This is praying tongues.

But tongues for a church service are for a sign when done properly someone on one side of the room will speak in tongues then the pastor will stop and get people to pray that it is interpreted then somebody else will interpret what was said in tongues and everybody has understanding but to just speak in tongues without interpretation is useless and does not effect anything or anybody.1st Corinthians 14 will back up what I've said.

Does the utterances and subsequent interpretation typically work like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv7TJXKMVsA

Philip wrote:Does the utterances and subsequent interpretation typically work like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv7TJXKMVsA

It depends on the kind of church service it is.I personally think that it should be done more smoother than that but I'm not going to judge them.It seems to be kindof a sloppy way to interpret.That is not the way it is done the way I'm talking about,I can't tell if they are just playing their own music or not,like praise and worship music,they are also probably doing the best they can with the musicians they have.I think when she interpreted she should have said here is the interpretation of what was said.

Keep in mind Acts 2:4 " And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost,and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts 2:13 " Others mocking said,these men are full of new wine." In other words they thought they were drunk.Acts 2:14 " But Peter,standing up with the eleven,lifted up his voice,and said unto them,Ye men of Judaea,and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem,be this known unto you,and hearken to my words: for these men are not drunken,as ye suppose,seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

Philip wrote:Does the utterances and subsequent interpretation typically work like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv7TJXKMVsA

One word...Emotionalism.

I believe speaking in tongues can be beneficial but if there's no one to interpret then it's not doing not much good. So it's really should be used more in prayer time or group prayer if there's no interpreter.


Here's a video to a medical study about speaking in tongues and what they found.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NZbQBajYnEc