Evolution vs. Creationism

Oh, dear. So you're one of those people who actually believes the holy spirit can possess people and speak through them? I suppose it would be a waste of time to point out that nothing outside of those types of churches can prove that the language is anything other than babble, right?

Oh, dear. So you're one of those people who actually believes the holy spirit can possess people and speak through them?

I suppose it would be a waste of time to point out that nothing outside of those types of churches can prove that the language is anything other than babble, right?

Subjective vs. Objective truth.

jampa17 wrote: If I gonna invent a new religion for controling peoples life and their money -I think that's your point- don't you think that I would omit that hard to believe things like the bread becomes meet and the wine blood...??? don't you think it's too risky if I try to convence people with those arguments...??? that the son of God was poor and the sacrificed for our sins is the correct manipulation plot...??? That God give us ten commendments wrote in stone and that have awful comands like no killing, stealing, fornication and all that...??? well, the inventor of Christianity miss the whole point right...??? his lies are too bad constructed and even contradict itself...

Seems to work fine - even today. Just watch any TV Evangelist and listen to his arguments.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 02 2009 at 16:52

Mr ProgFreak wrote: jampa17 wrote: If I gonna invent a new religion for controling peoples life and their money -I think that's your point- don't you think that I would omit that hard to believe things like the bread becomes meet and the wine blood...??? don't you think it's too risky if I try to convence people with those arguments...??? that the son of God was poor and the sacrificed for our sins is the correct manipulation plot...??? That God give us ten commendments wrote in stone and that have awful comands like no killing, stealing, fornication and all that...??? well, the inventor of Christianity miss the whole point right...??? his lies are too bad constructed and even contradict itself...   Seems to work fine - even today. Just watch any TV Evangelist and listen to his arguments.

Citizen Erased wrote: Pah. I was cynical of it myself beforehand. It's not something I could control. But if that's your response I'll hardly convince you. Either I'm a raving lunatic or I am telling you the truth about what I experienced. Believe me or not. I don't really lose or gain anything from it.

You're neither, actually. Just somebody who gets so caught up in the motion that you join in with the others. I have no doubt that you actually do believe in it, yet it's very curious . . . why is it that only certain congregations are able to do that? If it's truly something God-given, shouldn't every church be able to do it? 'Course the only churches who do speak in tongues are the churches who actually believe it to be possible.

See what I'm getting at, here? If you believe something to be true, you will convince yourself of it as well, in one way or another. For you it's making incoherent noise, for others it's allowing snakes to bite them, but for most Christians it's just simply believing, and nothing else is required to ''sell'' the illusion to the participants.

I don't think regular church attendees are liars. I just think they are greatly misguided.

jampa17 wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: jampa17 wrote: If I gonna invent a new religion for controling peoples life and their money -I think that's your point- don't you think that I would omit that hard to believe things like the bread becomes meet and the wine blood...??? don't you think it's too risky if I try to convence people with those arguments...??? that the son of God was poor and the sacrificed for our sins is the correct manipulation plot...??? That God give us ten commendments wrote in stone and that have awful comands like no killing, stealing, fornication and all that...??? well, the inventor of Christianity miss the whole point right...??? his lies are too bad constructed and even contradict itself...   Seems to work fine - even today. Just watch any TV Evangelist and listen to his arguments.   Com'n dude... you can do better than that... you think all the Christians are little unknowdge fools that believe the TV evangelistic shows...??? that's not the way ton convince truly educated christians... do you have any argument more...???

You'll love my argument, then. I actually cite situations where entire religions are based on proven bullsh*t.

p0mt3 wrote: Citizen Erased wrote: Pah. I was cynical of it myself beforehand. It's not something I could control. But if that's your response I'll hardly convince you. Either I'm a raving lunatic or I am telling you the truth about what I experienced. Believe me or not. I don't really lose or gain anything from it. You're neither, actually. Just somebody who gets so caught up in the motion that you join in with the others. I have no doubt that you actually do believe in it, yet it's very curious . . . why is it that only certain congregations are able to do that? If it's truly something God-given, shouldn't every church be able to do it? 'Course the only churches who do speak in tongues are the churches who actually believe it to be possible. See what I'm getting at, here? If you believe something to be true, you will convince yourself of it as well, in one way or another. For you it's making incoherent noise, for others it's allowing snakes to bite them, but for most Christians it's just simply believing, and nothing else is required to ''sell'' the illusion to the participants. I don't think regular church attendees are liars. I just think they are greatly misguided.

I doubt I'll be able to convince you. I can't remember much of the meeting up to that point but I barely knew a word of the songs (this was in Canada) and I didn't know anybody. I just asked God to 'move in me' and boom.

As for why can't all churches see the same results? They don't ask for it/don't believe it quite simply. I've spoken to a priest from down south before and his logic was similar to yours, except he believed that God didn't "manifest himself in such ways". Basically, he'd blocked the idea from his mind and so wasn't letting God in, is my theory.

This is a bit of a tangent anyway.

Pretend I am a Vedantist (a subset of Hinduism). I'm not, but it will make my posts make more sense.

Edited by Negoba - December 02 2009 at 17:11

Citizen Erased wrote: p0mt3 wrote: Citizen Erased wrote: Pah. I was cynical of it myself beforehand. It's not something I could control. But if that's your response I'll hardly convince you. Either I'm a raving lunatic or I am telling you the truth about what I experienced. Believe me or not. I don't really lose or gain anything from it. You're neither, actually. Just somebody who gets so caught up in the motion that you join in with the others. I have no doubt that you actually do believe in it, yet it's very curious . . . why is it that only certain congregations are able to do that? If it's truly something God-given, shouldn't every church be able to do it? 'Course the only churches who do speak in tongues are the churches who actually believe it to be possible. See what I'm getting at, here? If you believe something to be true, you will convince yourself of it as well, in one way or another. For you it's making incoherent noise, for others it's allowing snakes to bite them, but for most Christians it's just simply believing, and nothing else is required to ''sell'' the illusion to the participants. I don't think regular church attendees are liars. I just think they are greatly misguided. I doubt I'll be able to convince you. I can't remember much of the meeting up to that point but I barely knew a word of the songs (this was in Canada) and I didn't know anybody. I just asked God to 'move in me' and boom. As for why can't all churches see the same results? They don't ask for it/don't believe it quite simply. I've spoken to a priest from down south before and his logic was similar to yours, except he believed that God didn't "manifest himself in such ways". Basically, he'd blocked the idea from his mind and so wasn't letting God in, is my theory. This is a bit of a tangent anyway.

So you're saying that if somebody doesn't believe in something, it simply dosn't exist for them?

Well that sounds nice, and all, but it just isn't true. I don't believe in rainstorms. Does that mean when I go outside, I'll never be able to see or feel rain?

If the ability for God to enter somebody is real, then He should be able to do it with anybody. Now you'll argue that he only chooses to enter the hearts of His believers. Okay, fine . . . I was a believer for 19 years, yet I never once experienced being 'taken over' by anything, much less the Holy Spirit. It wasn't because I didn't believe it was possible, or that I simply chose to block it out. I believed, and God could have done that at any time. But He didn't. Because it just isn't possible.

Even most Christians know this. Even if you go by the Bible itself, it confirms this. The pentecost was a one-time incident, and it never happened again. God does that kind of stuff all the time in the Bible when he allows certain events to take place only once for a certain reason, then he brings everything back to normal again, and those abilities are no longer possible. But people in churches like yours choose to ignore that completely.

Also, the whole 'unkown tongues' thing is also misunderstood. The word 'unkown' is italicized. Meaning that it has been ADDED to the already existing scripture. It's to make the english readable. It does not exist in the actual manuscripts. These 'tongues' were understood by everybody else there, not just the supposedly possessed.

Here ya go:

http://www.biblestudysite.com/tongues.htm

But of course, that won't convice you, either, because guess what? You don't really want to know the truth. You would rather remain in the dark and unaware of the actual answers because it comforts you to believe in such things. That's fine, but if you're that kind of person, you have no business jumping on here and accusing us non-believers of being the stubborn ones.


Edited by p0mt3 - December 02 2009 at 17:19

Negoba wrote: Pretend I am a Vedantist (a subset of Hinduism). I'm not, but it will make my posts make more sense.   Vedanta is based on two simple propositions: Human nature is divine. The aim of human life is to realize that human nature is divine. The goal of Vedanta is a state of self-realization or cosmic consciousness. Historically and currently, it is assumed that this state can be experienced by anyone, but it cannot be adequately conveyed in language.

 . . . but we're not talking about something that can be experienced by anyone, we're talking about a small group of churches who claim to have this ability that nobody else can prove.


Maybe I'm being too specific, and have missed your point entirely.



I mean, I like the idea of reality being a matter of percaption, and I've even written about stuff like that in my lyrics. That one lyric I showed you a whille back telling of how a man slowly begins to realize that he is in fact not a man but existence itself, therefore he sees and hears everything all the time.

On a basic level, reality being a matter of perception is quite true. I know I've experienced that many times in my own life, but when it raises to the point where it becomes more and more obscure, that's just a whole play area for charlotteans and racket-runners to roam around in. Can you blame me for wanting more proof?