WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
POI
Sage
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 406 times
Been thanked: 315 times

WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #1

Post by POI »

I've been debating apologists, pastors, ministers, theists, and others, for a few years now. As I had already suspected, and continue to confirm for myself, is that no amount of logical argumentation later sways one's decision to the opponent's "side". This goes for both theists and atheists alike...

I've delved into the 'psychology of believe', in the passed. However, these topics below look to be my biggest 'findings' thus far, as to why so many believe....

- Most are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of (type 1 errors). We all commit them BTW.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of geography.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to early indoctrination. - It later becomes difficult to shake this early indoctrinated core belief, even if the evidence later suggests otherwise to this recipient.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the notion of 'experiencing god speaking to them' at one point or many.
- (Please add your reason(s) here if you feel I've missed some key topics)

I feel it's safe to assume that we will always have more god believers, verses 'atheists'. Apologetics, though fun to debate, hardly ever IS the reason someone becomes a 'god believer'. "It's been said that logic and reason is not what brought someone to 'god'. Hence, why would you suspect logic and reason could sway such away from god?"

One last thing, before I pose the question(s) for examination...

I was in a heated debate, with a church pastor, about all things... slavery. In the middle, he stopped and asked me.... "Have you ever felt the Holy Spirit?" For which I answered in honesty.... "Though I have had experiences in the passed, for which I cannot fully explain, I do not know whether or not it was me speaking to myself, or if there was the presence of something else, for which was not me." He paused, looked at me, as if he felt sorry for me, and stated... "Okay, this conversation is over." I asked why. He stated that God exists, and He attempts to speak to all of us. If you do not hear Him, this is your fault. I then pointed out that many, around the globe, feel they have communicated with god(s), but also differing god(s) than (yours). He was already done, and just continued to no longer engage, as if he just felt pity for me.

Again, seems all roads, with Christians, seemingly often times leads to Romans 1. Anywho, moving along... Question(s) for debate:

1. Would you mind giving us the MAIN reason you believe? Is it one of the topics above, or other? If you need elaboration on any above, please ask...
2. Is your current belief open for actual debate? Meaning, could ANYTHING shake your faith? If not, why not?
3. Why are you here, hanging out in the apologetics forums? Are you here to convert atheists, or other? On a side note, I suspect apologetics is not what brings Christians to Christianity; so why would you expect different for others?

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #161

Post by Realworldjack »

brunumb wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:09 am
Realworldjack wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:49 am Again, before I get started here, allow me to point out, this is another argument you have not come up with on your own. Rather, it is an old worn-out argument which sounds good to the ears, but has no real substance.
That sounds like just about every apologist I've ever encountered.
There is a tremendous difference in one who is pointing to an actual example, and demonstrating the argument is not original, along with being no reason for doubt, as I have done, as opposed to one such as yourself, who simply makes the comment without showing any sort of example.

POI
Sage
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 406 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #162

Post by POI »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:27 pm
POI wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 1:47 pm What do you mean by a 'little bit of both'? For example, the aforementioned topics of slavery, whipping your children, women < men, and homosexuality come back to mind. Do you merely agree because you feel like you have to - (Via God says so), <or> when you come across these topics, your gut already 100% agrees with these assertions - (regardless of if they were God pronouncements or not)?
Because God says so. If God doesn't exist, then anything goes.
So it is not a little of both, in regards to slavery, whipping your children, men > women, and homosexuality? It's because "God says so", that you must agree with these 4 topics?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:27 pm
POI wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 1:47 pm
So in your situation, regarding the biggest surmised conclusion of them all, credulity is the way to go?
Belief based on reasonable faith is the way to go.
Credulity means "readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence." You have somehow "inferred" a direct association/correlation between a "heat wave sensation" and the 'Holy Spirit'. All-the-while, not really bothering to address or rule out all other possibilities. This is credulity, and nothing more.
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:27 pm
POI wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 1:47 pm Thus far, in regards to the topic of the 'Holy Spirit', your conclusion has been made by way of credulity; and nothing more. If your search is for truth, especially about this topic, seems as though you would not hinge such a conclusion upon this methodology.
Again, "I presume". If I wrong, I am wrong. If im right, then I'm right.
You missed my point here. For arguably the largest topic you can 'infer', credulity is the best way to conclude it?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:27 pm
POI wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 1:47 pm
I stated I know "your odds are much lower". I 'know' this because of the topic of external world skepticism. Until you can effectively rule out every other possible option, these options must still be left upon the table. Thus, when it comes to you feeling a 'heat wave sensation', how many other options have you effectively ruled out? And how were you able to do so?
Then everything goes back to "I presume", doesn't it? If I admit that I may be wrong, then doesn't it follow that any of those other options may the cause?

Yes, it does.
You continue to miss my point. Wouldn't you rather investigate other possibilities, as it is a highly important topic for you? Or is credulity a way to maybe give you comfort?
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 6:27 pm
POI wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 1:47 pm
You don't need to. I just brought forth two observations, just for starters...

1. How many 'tongue languages' are there?
I don't know.
POI wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 1:47 pm 2. Why merely manifest in specific churches; where this practice is expected and/or encouraged?
I don't know.
I already understand that you stated you have not looked into this topic. However, you also admitted that when it comes to communication with the "Holy Spirit', 'speaking in tongues' is the only method mentioned in the Bible??? If it is the only method mentioned in the Bible, then I please ask that you at least address my two observations, as it again directly relates to a very important topic for you. So, starting anew...

Observation #1. Don't you find it odd that virtually no two people sound alike, when they are speaking in tongues? Meaning, is it quite possible all these individuals merely think they are speaking/communicating with some external force, when in fact, they may only be producing audible gibberish to themselves? Does tongue language have one dialect, or many? Even if it has many, can you ask one of them what specific words translate to mean, so we know which specific dialect they are using?

Observation #2. Don't you find it odd, that many will speak in tongues, when in the presence of specific churches? But in other churches, you see none? Like I stated prior, I've attended a Pentecostal church, where virtually everyone there speaks "in tongues". Though they may all genuinely feel they are communicating with the Holy Spirit, isn't it quite possible none of them actually are? If it's possible, then how the heck might one distinguish if any of them actually are? Like I stated prior, it may even be possible some feel some sort of 'heat wave sensation' while doing so. Does this then validate the transaction?

Thus far, it seems you want none of this specific topic? I know you stated you have not investigated. However, if we can find a methodology, for which the Bible instructs that humans may communicate with the Holy Spirit, wouldn't you at least be anxious to do so?

POI
Sage
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 406 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #163

Post by POI »

Realworldjack wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 8:42 am [Replying to POI in post #151]

On this past Tuesday, I sat down to type out a response to your last post intending to respond to everything you had to say. While doing so, I began to feel ill, and on Wednesday I tested positive for covid, and have not felt well enough to continue.
Wow, that sux! I hope you recover quickly!
Realworldjack wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 8:42 am I began to think that it may be far better to address one issue at a time, instead of taking on everything at once. In other words, maybe it will be better to see if we may be able to settle one issue before moving on to the next? With that being said, let us look at what you say first in order to see if we can come to some sort of resolution here, before moving on.
I have, maybe even a better idea... Let us fast-forward to the meat and potatoes. I'd rather not circle the same topics, over and over and over; to no end... I've asked you, repeatedly, why do you really believe? For which you have gone on to tell me it's not really that simple. But in another thread, you seem to make it quite simple. Does this mean you have now changed your mind, and it is no longer simple? Or, is your statement from this other thread still valid?

Here's your claim, from the other thread: "you made the claim, that you could "debunk" (expose the falseness) of the reports we have in the NT. When you made this claim, I conceded that if you could hold up your end of the bargain, I would be done with Christianity."

Before asking my almost rhetorical follow up questions below, I must state (up front), that there really is no way for me to falsify the claims of these reports. Hence, you can make the above statement without virtually any worry of it ever being falsified.

1. Would you agree that 'eyewitnesses' would be virtually the only way in which to 'validate' such a claim from antiquity? I would assume we can move on to question 2.
2. If so, what is your definition of an 'eyewitness'? We may even agree here as well.... Meaning, someone who can give first hand testimony of an event.
3. However, if these 'eyewitnesses' are not sufficiently deposed or cross examined by doubters, should they remain credible eyewitnesses by any/all who may have further questions in what they saw? If so, why?
4. Since you mentioned how things work in the court of law, do we have any recorded public court transcripts, or other, which demonstrate any direct cross examination of said witnesses? Seems you already answered here. The answer is likely no.
5. Since these folks are all now dead, should we conclude they really saw what they claimed they saw, based upon (faith <or> other)?
6. Was Jesus's intent for his resurrection to be provided by sufficient evidence, or, to instead be believed by way of faith alone?
7. Is faith a reliable pathway in determining if something is indeed 'true or false'?

You see where this is starting to go? I could continue with further follow up questions, but I gather you are keen enough to see where this will head...

The question remains, what IS true? Meaning, DID Jesus rise from the grave to save humanity? Thus far, we apparently have a very small handful, at BEST, of (not deposed) 'eyewitnesses'? Kool.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #164

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to POI in post #163]

I think you have demonstrated my whole point in that there would be way more involved than simply a "main reason"? I believe we can demonstrate this simply by looking at your first question.
1. Would you agree that 'eyewitnesses' would be virtually the only way in which to 'validate' such a claim from antiquity?
Well again, "validate" would be a pretty strong word. I am not under the impression these things can be, "validated". However, I am convinced one can have a very high degree of confidence based upon the facts we have. You certainly seemed to have no problem with Dawkins making such a statement, someone with whom you tend to agree, but somehow there is a problem when one opposed may hold such confidence?

Next, I am convinced we do in fact have "eyewitness" testimony, and there is certain evidence to back such things, and this will become involved. First, most all scholars agree we do in fact have genuine letters from the Apostle Paul. We can know beyond any doubt, Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus. We can also have full confidence Paul would have known, and spent time with those who were eyewitnesses, who would have actually spent time with Jesus. Moreover, we have pretty strong evidence the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul, which would demonstrate clearly this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus and would have known the apostles personally. After spending decades traveling with Paul, all the way, and up until Paul was in prison well into old age, this author sits down to write, not one, but two long and detailed letters to an individual named Theophilus, explaining to him certain events, some of which he would have witnessed himself, and tells this Theophilus he is writing these things out in order for this Theophilus to "know the exact truth".

I know of no evidence whatsoever, which would lead us to believe this author was relaying false information? Now, I can kind of understand one who may just so happen to believe certain things to be true, who pass on false information not intending to. However, we are talking about an author who gives very good evidence he would have been alive at the time, who goes on to tell Theophilus he had, "investigated everything carefully from the beginning" as if he would have been alive at the time in order to do such an investigation. This letter certainly seems to be addressed to one individual which eliminates the idea this author was attempting to persuade the masses, and there is no way this author could have known his letters would have been contained in what we now know as the Bible.

Therefore, the evidence we have is an author who would have been alive at the time, who witnessed much of what he wrote, would have known and spent time with those who would have been making the claims, addresses one individual, and goes on to give the reason for these letters, which would be in order for Theophilus to "know the exact truth". This is the evidence we have. In order for me to believe otherwise, I would have to go outside the evidence we have in order to simply assume.

So then, since we can know beyond any reasonable doubt that we do indeed have genuine letters from Paul, and we can know Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus, would have known the apostles personally, along with having very strong evidence the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul, would have known the other apostles as well, why would it be hard to imagine, that the other material we have which we refer to as "gospels" would have been authored by those alive at the time? Well, it is not hard to imagine at all! Rather, it would be what one would expect.

So? Why is there any doubt at all concerning who the authors may have been? I can only imagine it stems from those who understand they must and have to cast some sort of doubt. Why? Well, because it does not bode well for one's case if the authors would have actually been alive at the time. So???? What would I have to believe in order to believe these authors would not have been, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Well, I would have to believe there were indeed authors who compiled these things. I would have to believe these authors would have written long after the events recorded. I would have to believe there were those much closer in time who believed these things were indeed authored by those mentioned above. I would have to believe they were incorrect. These are the least of the things I would have to believe, and I would have to believe them, based upon what? What evidence do I have to believe such things? The point is, I have supplied very good reasons, facts, and evidence to support what it is I believe concerning the authorship of what is contained in the NT, and the only reason I am given to doubt the facts, and evidence in support of what I believe, is doubt itself.

I could continue on, and this is only point 1 which sort of demonstrates how involved it all is. Allow me to repeat, I have no problem with your doubt, and do not insist you have no reason for your doubt. If you are not insisting I would have no reason to believe as I do, then we can end the conversation. It will do you no good to insist you have not heard any good reasons as of yet, because I have certainly not heard any good reasons for your doubt, but this does not go on to cause me to insist you must not have any sort of reason.

POI
Sage
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 406 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #165

Post by POI »

Realworldjack wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:22 pm [Replying to POI in post #163]

I think you have demonstrated my whole point in that there would be way more involved than simply a "main reason"? I believe we can demonstrate this simply by looking at your first question.
Yes, there IS a "main reason". I gave it to you already. -->"you made the claim, that you could "debunk" (expose the falseness) of the reports we have in the NT. When you made this claim, I conceded that if you could hold up your end of the bargain, I would be done with Christianity."

Meaning, if one could falsify the reports, then you would no longer believe. This IS the "main reason" you believe, right? Well, I already conceded, that because this was a claim based in <antiquity>, your belief is safe, and free from 'falsification'. Very simple.... Now to your response, for which you have already provided prior, and I have addressed prior, (and around the bin we go again)....

Realworldjack wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:22 pm
1. Would you agree that 'eyewitnesses' would be virtually the only way in which to 'validate' such a claim from antiquity?
Well again, "validate" would be a pretty strong word. I am not under the impression these things can be, "validated".
I asked if you agree, and apparently you do, in the fact I placed the word 'validate' in quotes. No need to elaborate here...
Realworldjack wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:22 pm However, I am convinced one can have a very high degree of confidence based upon the facts we have.
Agreed. Just like my degree in confidence that a man named Jesus, actually rose from the grave, is likely well under 1% probability. How about you --- (80, 90, 99% that He did)?
Realworldjack wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:22 pm You certainly seemed to have no problem with Dawkins making such a statement, someone with whom you tend to agree, but somehow there is a problem when one opposed may hold such confidence?
I asked, point/blank, does Dawkins possess a (cognitive dissonance), where the presented evidence for a resurrection claim is concerned. I do not recall if you answered this question or not? And if you did, what was your response?
Realworldjack wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:22 pm Next, I am convinced we do in fact have "eyewitness" testimony, and there is certain evidence to back such things, and this will become involved.
Not really. Your prior response involved the topic of martyrdom. You stated (post 151) - "the apostles were going around preaching, and were facing severe persecution for doing so.

For which I will again state.... I have no doubt people believed stuff then, and people believe stuff now. I also have no doubt people can be, and will be, persecuted for their beliefs. Which, on a side note, often times only 'strengthens' one's convictions/beliefs anyhow. But I would argue the topic of martyrdom has no relevancy to a claim being 'true or false'. We could spend many exchanges discussing how people, in the passed, present, and future, will have martyr(ed) themselves for claims, which later look to have been falsified. So why bring it up here?
Realworldjack wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:22 pm First, most all scholars agree we do in fact have genuine letters from the Apostle Paul. We can know beyond any doubt, Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus. We can also have full confidence Paul would have known, and spent time with those who were eyewitnesses, who would have actually spent time with Jesus. Moreover, we have pretty strong evidence the author of the letters addressed to Theophilus would have been a traveling companion of Paul, which would demonstrate clearly this author would have been alive at the time of Jesus and would have known the apostles personally. After spending decades traveling with Paul, all the way, and up until Paul was in prison well into old age, this author sits down to write, not one, but two long and detailed letters to an individual named Theophilus, explaining to him certain events, some of which he would have witnessed himself, and tells this Theophilus he is writing these things out in order for this Theophilus to "know the exact truth".
I already conceded this (without protest).... (i.e.)

"The question remains, what IS true? Meaning, DID Jesus rise from the grave to save humanity? Thus far, we apparently have a very small handful, at BEST, of (not deposed) 'eyewitnesses'? Kool."
Realworldjack wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:22 pm I know of no evidence whatsoever, which would lead us to believe this author was relaying false information?
As I've stated repeatedly, I do not doubt they believed what they reported. But it's more likely they are mistaken. Why? Just like when we have the means to investigate any supernatural claims of recent history, it does not appear to hold up as 'credible', or it remains unsolved because the claim is again unfalsifiable. In the case for a resurrection, you cannot really investigate. Why? Antiquity will not allow for it... They are all dead, and none were really deposed in a satisfactory kind of way anyhow... Which is why I asked the follow up question... Was Jesus's intent for later believers to take the conclusion, based upon 'faith' <or> other?
Realworldjack wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:22 pm Now, I can kind of understand one who may just so happen to believe certain things to be true, who pass on false information not intending to. However, we are talking about an author who gives very good evidence he would have been alive at the time, who goes on to tell Theophilus he had, "investigated everything carefully from the beginning" as if he would have been alive at the time in order to do such an investigation. This letter certainly seems to be addressed to one individual which eliminates the idea this author was attempting to persuade the masses, and there is no way this author could have known his letters would have been contained in what we now know as the Bible.
Disagree with your assessment here..... I'd say the least probable conclusion to be made, is that Jesus ACTUALLY rose from the grave. Just like I comparatively conclude that the least probable conclusion, is that a 'supernatural conclusion' IS the answer for any other claim made, when claiming "it was supernatural."
Realworldjack wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:22 pm I could continue on, and this is only point 1 which sort of demonstrates how involved it all is. Allow me to repeat, I have no problem with your doubt, and do not insist you have no reason for your doubt. If you are not insisting I would have no reason to believe as I do, then we can end the conversation. It will do you no good to insist you have not heard any good reasons as of yet, because I have certainly not heard any good reasons for your doubt, but this does not go on to cause me to insist you must not have any sort of reason.
Well, I will restate to you what I asked others in this thread.... (post $154):

Let me know if you've experienced this too....? Once in a while, you will come across an apologist who, on the surface, sounds very well read, claims to have tons of logic, will state they have been doing this for years, and will also claim to be a deep critical thinker. But ultimately, when you press them for their reason(s) for their belief in Christ, the whole thing just kinda falls apart.

Thus, as I mention Dawkins prior, about whether or not he possesses a cognitive dissonance, where the 'evidence' for a resurrection is in place; do you possess a cognitive dissonance, in the way you handle this supernatural claim, verses any other supernatural claim? Or maybe you accept other supernatural claims too? You tell me?

And to answer your response in bold...

I no longer believe that the supernatural exists.... You see, this is ultimately why I do not accept the Bible's supernatural claims. Sure, I will blindly accept that a man named Jesus lived, preached, and was murdered for claims of 'blasphemy'. I'm sure some of it may be true, and some of it may be false. But the stakes are really low, (unless you wish to piggy back all of these natural based claims to correlate/connect to the supernatural claimed event as well). Then we can critique each natural based claim accordingly, if we even can... It's the extraordinary claims, where the stakes change, don't they?

And yes, we can end things here if you like, as you hinted in red....

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3930
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 2998 times
Been thanked: 1633 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #166

Post by brunumb »

Realworldjack wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 8:57 am
brunumb wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:09 am
Realworldjack wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:49 am Again, before I get started here, allow me to point out, this is another argument you have not come up with on your own. Rather, it is an old worn-out argument which sounds good to the ears, but has no real substance.
That sounds like just about every apologist I've ever encountered.
There is a tremendous difference in one who is pointing to an actual example, and demonstrating the argument is not original, along with being no reason for doubt, as I have done, as opposed to one such as yourself, who simply makes the comment without showing any sort of example.
No example necessary as you no doubt well know. In any case, how many of your arguments have you actually come up with on your own? Rather, they are generally old worn-out arguments, repeated ad nauseam I might add, that might sound good to your ears, but have no real substance.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3930
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 2998 times
Been thanked: 1633 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #167

Post by brunumb »

POI wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:58 am
Observation #1. Don't you find it odd that virtually no two people sound alike, when they are speaking in tongues? Meaning, is it quite possible all these individuals merely think they are speaking/communicating with some external force, when in fact, they may only be producing audible gibberish to themselves?
I know very little about this speaking in tongues phenomenon. Do the practitioners understand what they are saying? Can others hearing the speech understand what is being said? If not, what is the point of it?
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

POI
Sage
Posts: 786
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 406 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #168

Post by POI »

brunumb wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 5:49 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:58 am
Observation #1. Don't you find it odd that virtually no two people sound alike, when they are speaking in tongues? Meaning, is it quite possible all these individuals merely think they are speaking/communicating with some external force, when in fact, they may only be producing audible gibberish to themselves?
I know very little about this speaking in tongues phenomenon.
Honestly, I'm not exactly sure how anyone really could. The goalposts would be perpetually moving...
brunumb wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 5:49 pm Do the practitioners understand what they are saying? Can others hearing the speech understand what is being said? If not, what is the point of it?
More great questions...

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2103
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1346 times
Been thanked: 513 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #169

Post by benchwarmer »

brunumb wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 5:49 pm
POI wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:58 am
Observation #1. Don't you find it odd that virtually no two people sound alike, when they are speaking in tongues? Meaning, is it quite possible all these individuals merely think they are speaking/communicating with some external force, when in fact, they may only be producing audible gibberish to themselves?
I know very little about this speaking in tongues phenomenon. Do the practitioners understand what they are saying? Can others hearing the speech understand what is being said? If not, what is the point of it?
I have some experience with people who practice this. From my understanding, they don't know themselves what is being said, but it is more of a 'deep' spiritual communication with God and a way to praise Him. Whatever all that means...

Now, biblically speaking (bolding mine):

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
1 Corinthians 14
Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue[a] does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort. 4 Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues,[c] unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

6 Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? 7 Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the pipe or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8 Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9 So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11 If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me. 12 So it is with you. Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church.

13 For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. 16 Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer,[d] say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying? 17 You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified.
27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.
Basically, speaking unintelligible gibberish (to everyone but God) is not terribly useful, it's better to prophesy. If you do speak in tongues, someone should be around to interpret it. If there is no interpreter, keep it to yourself. Obviously many churches disregard the above passage. Quelle surprise.

User avatar
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

Post #170

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

POI wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 11:58 am So it is not a little of both, in regards to slavery, whipping your children, men > women, and homosexuality? It's because "God says so", that you must agree with these 4 topics?
I stand by what i said.

"A little bit of both". In other words; it is my GUT FEELING that God TOLD ME SO..

Reading comprehension.
Credulity means "readiness or willingness to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence." You have somehow "inferred" a direct association/correlation between a "heat wave sensation" and the 'Holy Spirit'. All-the-while, not really bothering to address or rule out all other possibilities. This is credulity, and nothing more.
I am certain enough about it to believe it is true. This certainty is independent of others opinions on it.
You missed my point here. For arguably the largest topic you can 'infer', credulity is the best way to conclude it?
It is whatever you think it is. Apparently you are gonna run this "credulity" stuff in to the ground.

So who am I to stop you. Please, carry on.

It is your show here.
You continue to miss my point. Wouldn't you rather investigate other possibilities, as it is a highly important topic for you? Or is credulity a way to maybe give you comfort?
Yup. The show must go on.
I already understand that you stated you have not looked into this topic. However, you also admitted that when it comes to communication with the "Holy Spirit', 'speaking in tongues' is the only method mentioned in the Bible??? If it is the only method mentioned in the Bible, then I please ask that you at least address my two observations, as it again directly relates to a very important topic for you. So, starting anew...

Observation #1. Don't you find it odd that virtually no two people sound alike, when they are speaking in tongues? Meaning, is it quite possible all these individuals merely think they are speaking/communicating with some external force, when in fact, they may only be producing audible gibberish to themselves? Does tongue language have one dialect, or many? Even if it has many, can you ask one of them what specific words translate to mean, so we know which specific dialect they are using?

Observation #2. Don't you find it odd, that many will speak in tongues, when in the presence of specific churches? But in other churches, you see none? Like I stated prior, I've attended a Pentecostal church, where virtually everyone there speaks "in tongues". Though they may all genuinely feel they are communicating with the Holy Spirit, isn't it quite possible none of them actually are? If it's possible, then how the heck might one distinguish if any of them actually are? Like I stated prior, it may even be possible some feel some sort of 'heat wave sensation' while doing so. Does this then validate the transaction?

Thus far, it seems you want none of this specific topic? I know you stated you have not investigated. However, if we can find a methodology, for which the Bible instructs that humans may communicate with the Holy Spirit, wouldn't you at least be anxious to do so?
With all due respect, sir, your observations are riddled with premises, most of which I can't either deny, nor confirm.

So I am unable to offer any insight of this subject matter and I shamefully admit that you know more about this subject than I.
Last edited by We_Are_VENOM on Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

Post Reply