Well the flip side of that coin is there are no taxes paid by these churches. They get government services for "free."
There is cognative dissonance at work. A fear of death is required to survive. Yet humans know they will die. Ergo, the creation of an invisible all powerful magic man and an afterlife to be awarded to those who believe in the magic man without evidence. Ignorance becomes a virtue to be rewarded. No theist can or will ever present empirical evidence for their claims. As if that was not bad enough, they reject science that is based on empirical evidence. Cause when it comes to science v. a magic book.... There are other reasons to believe as well. For example tier 3 of the Maslow hierarchy of needs. The need to be part of a group. And the church services, bible studies, various activies, etc. provide this. Also, for the people with important church functions, a need for esteem (2nd tier) is met. In some cases "knowing god" probably meets tier 1 (self actualization) needs as well. Of course meeting needs is not evidence of truth.
A lot of serious believers were doing a lot of preying when the medieval black death pandemic in Europe killed 25-30 million people in a few years. How did that praying work out for them? Your God could have simply told people that the plague was transmitted by fleas if a miracle was out of the question. But he didn't do that. Why?
How can the Holy Spirit be demonstrated with empirical evidence? Can the Holy Spirit cure an amputee (for example)? Or is the Holy Spirit another invisible and undemonstrated claim?
I can't answer that, God's ways are not always obvious to me. Another bit of evil I struggle with is the Holocaust where millions were killed at the hands of evil men.
As do all charities, including the peoples exercise of basic rights in freedom which come from God. Otherwise we might have to pay to have a personal conversation, take a walk, gather as a family, or worship.
Do churches have a right to free police protection, fire protection, free roads, etc. Someone has to pay for this stuff. As a taxpayer and non-religious person why do I have to pay for free stuff for your church? I believe you are a conservative, so as you should know, nothing is free.
"Nothing is free" - I disagree, nothing on earth is free. Least of all being ruled over by other men.
It isn't free. The members of those Church's pay taxes which help provide the benefits you mention. It is this way with much in our society. For instance, childless couples and single people help pay for Schools for other peoples children. I personally don't see it as a great burden, but rather as a tolerable means of living with different kinds of people. It also helps ensure the separation of church and state.
All of society benefits by an educated population. Does all of society benefit from a religious organization?
About as well as strapping on a mask filled with herbs and flowers (sound familiar)? I think a more interesting question would be how did the Black Death work out for the Catholic Church and clergy? Not very well, and while I have nothing against the RCC, a lot of good came out of that and the parallel revolts against the secular powers of the time. Maybe God, his or otherwise, isn't like the anthropomorphized cartoon character in Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Maybe the doctrine of Free Will means we are truly on our own? Would you prefer otherwise?
Speaking in tongues is the evidence of the holy spirit within the individual Christian. It (lower case holy spirit) is the gift of the (capitalized) Holy Spirit, God, by which the gift communicates with the Holy Spirit. It's also known as "praying in the spirit". That is the experiential evidence mentioned in several verses of the Bible.
then they should be treated like any other non-profit it was basically done way back when as the founders did not want a theocracy here, thus the trade off as long as the church stayed out of government, the government stayed out of the church
Actually it is not. Just nonsense noise produced as a learned behavior and peer pressure. https://www.skeptical-science.com/religion/speaking-in-tongues-the-real-story/ Finally, just to prove the point that there is no sky-magic involved and that this is just a learned behaviour, there was a study carried out with a group of 60 non-believing undergraduates. 20% could accomplish it after listening to only a 60 second sample and about 70% could succeed with some moderate training. [Spanos, Nicholas P.; Cross, Wendy P.; Lepage, Mark; Coristine, Marjorie (February 1986). “Glossolalia as learned behavior: An experimental demonstration”. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 95] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaking_in_tongues That the sounds are taken from the set of sounds already known to the speaker is confirmed by others. Felicitas Goodman, a psychological anthropologist and linguist, also found that the speech of glossolalists reflected the patterns of speech of the speaker's native language.[15] These findings were confirmed by Kavan (2004).[16] Samarin found that the resemblance to human language was merely on the surface and so concluded that glossolalia is "only a facade of language".[17] He reached this conclusion because the syllable string did not form words, the stream of speech was not internally organized, and – most importantly of all – there was no systematic relationship between units of speech and concepts.
I have no preference other than a preference for the truth. And maybe the doctrine of free simply attempts to explain the fact that there is no supernatural god or gods. Instead of maybe this or that speculation, extraordinary claims (let alone supernatural claims) should be based on empirical evidence.
Yes, I'm aware of the supposed studies. I question their authenticity because I'm also aware that speaking in tongues can be counterfeited (I won't bother explaining why or how it can be). The scriptural basis (in addition to my experiential evidence) for my pov comes from the (historical) record of Acts, chapter two - the day of Pentecost. 4And they were all filled with the holy spirit (lower case), and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit (upper case) gave them utterance. 5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia. and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. Speaking in tongues can be either in the tongues of men or angels (or combination of both). If the latter no man could understand it.
So everyone was speaking in their own language but it was understood by all as if there was no need for translation? What I gather from it is that they spoke of God by inspiration in their own languages. And the listeners understood them by the same spirit as if they were all speaking the same language which was the listeners own language, rather than the speakers. Is that correct? If so, that would be a miracle. Especially for me, since I still struggle with my own language, much less foreign languages of which I am clueless. Pentecost would then be more a matter of listening and hearing than of speaking. And those this day, who work themselves into a frenzy of babble on a stage, whom no one understands, are just making fools of themselves.
1 Corinthians 13 New International Version "If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." - 1 Corinthians 13:1-7 Note 1Corinthians 13:1.
No, the tongue is unknown by the person speaking in tongues. No, the languages spoken was that of all those present in the Temple on the day of Pentecost. Each Apostle was speaking in tongues unknown to them, but understood by others in their language. Speaking in tongues is not limited to just one language at a time. Since the languages spoken are directed by God, God is and does inspire the words spoken. On that day He inspired each apostle words spoken so those present could declare they were hearing "the wonderful works of God". It caused such a stir that about three thousand people converted to Christianity that very day. The combination of the phenomenon and Peter's words about the phenomenon was enough to convince them that Jesus is Lord of Life. Not quite. See above. Not quite. The miracle was the the new birth when the Apostles were each filled with the gift (holy spirit) from God. Speaking in tongues is the manifestation of the gift. Not uncommon. There are many in various denominations that believe in speaking in tongues, but are doing so inappropriately, imho. Speaking in tongues is primarily for the profit of the individual. The spirit within the individual is communicating with God, who is Spirit. Scripture states that it is prayer. 1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. The only time I speak in tongues in public is at a Church setting and I (as well as others called upon will (should) follow it up with the manifestation of interpretation (inspired by the same Spirit - God - that inspired the tongue).See 1 Corinthians 14:13. I would agree that what some are doing makes speaking (and those doing it) look foolish. There's a reason why that is. Even though the tongues might be genuine the practice can cause confusion and turn people away from God instead of towards Him. Now who, exactly, doesn't want people to come to God? Who is the enemy of God according to the Scriptures?
Hmm. When I read this which you quoted, I understand it to be a miracle of hearing/understanding more than speaking: "every man heard them speak in his own language. 7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia. and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." As for those who are turned away by what appears to be pretension, they aren't turned away from God, but from falsehoods parading as representative of God. And this would be the disservice to God, for the speakers to have done in his name that which isn't theirs to do. It is akin to electing oneself to Gods service, thus attempting to dispossess God of his own free agency to call to his service those whom he will. And so it would be to presume to command God as if there were no God but the willfulness of man. Can you see this possibility of this error in understanding by men? This would explain Jesus words in Matthew 7: "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
