As an abductee you should start a religion, like say L. Ron Hubbard. Write a book with the spiritual revalations provided to you by the little gray men.
It seems as though you're suggesting that the real miracle of that day is one where God inspired the listeners to hear "the wonderful works of God". Point taken. However, I wasn't pointing at all. If I made a broad brush implication, that's my bad. I was thinking of Acts 2:12 and 13 12And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? 13Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. Some will be drawn in by it, while others will mock those speaking in tongues. There's nothing wrong with the manifestation of speaking in tongues, itself. It's how it's done that causes the problem. I outlined (briefly) my understanding of the correct way speaking in tongues should be manifested. It's primary purpose is towards the profit of praying for that which God directs a believer to pray for. Our minds don't always know what or how we should pray for. Our spirit doesn't have that challenge because it's in sync with God's will. Anything is possible. Jesus wasn't referring to speaking in tongues.
My "experiential" evidence is that I speak in tongues. It's the one thing I cannot deny or rationalize away. And believe me, I tried. I went months without speaking in tongues (after a crisis in my faith) just to see if I couldn't do it anymore and then be able to say I must have faked it before.
And so how do you know your speaking in tongues is a real language and not language sounds from your brain spoken as a language analog -- as per what was documented in the two links i posted?
Yes, that is how it reads to me. For instance, a speaker could give a sermon in Spanish, and everyone present of every language would understand it as if it were in their own language, like an automatic translator....only it was accomplished thru the spirit. True, that he didn't specify it. But it's reasonable to conclude that speaking in tongues would be wrapped up in "many wonderful works."
You're missing the point I made earlier in a post. Speaking in tongues is a language which is unknown to the speaker. If I understood what I was speaking it wouldn't be a manifestation of the gift of holy spirit. Also the language could be the language of angels. 1 Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. It could be a combination of both. If it's the language of angels, no man could understand it, and only with the manifestation of interpretation could it be known what was spoken. But I get your point. I, myself, have questioned it, but then I considered the fact that it doesn't sound like gibberish. It has a certain syntax to it. I'm not saying someone couldn't be speaking gibberish and claim it was genuinely SIT, but I'm not concerned about their claims. I'm only concerned with how it's benefited me personally in my journey to have a personal relationship with my God. I realize, fully, that my experiential understanding doesn't do anything for you or anyone else which is why I won't/don't put on a display of my SIT. I'm not a lab rat, and I think doing so is disrespectful of what God has given me. If a person can't believe the Word of God they won't ever believe SIT is anything other than gibberish. That's not a hill I have any motivation to climb.
Then wouldn't that make God a respecter of persons since some (present that day) claimed the Apostles were drunk and speaking gibberish? They didn't understand what was being spoken.
So, no evidence. You stated you have empirical evidence and you don't. As expected, what you have is a claim. Not empirical evidence. Didn't bother to read either of the links I provided, did you? I don't know you. so perhaps your talking in tongues is not like the video below. And if so, a good purpose of your putting you capabilities on display would be to demonstrate people can talk in tongues without being mentally challenged like the following people obviously are. Or perhaps they are demon possessed?
Also note further on in the same Chapter: 8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. I also agree that the speaking in tongues of Acts Chapter 2 was depicted as something done to help people understand what was being said, not so that some could make sounds to prove what a great Christian they are. “You will know them by their fruits”. I think that sums it up. Most examples of it within Christianity are people speaking with the purpose of helping people in other languages to understand that which the translated bible now communicates. Glossolalia as practiced today by Pentecostals and Charismatics is not unique to Christianity either. No offense intended to those who enjoy the practice.
I don't know the ten-dollar words DRI. But you sound like you know what you are talking about. The thing is when government robs you to pay Peter who gives it to judas and Paul doles out only what judas gives him, well you get the idea. Charity can only take place between two parties, never three. A deal to "help others" under third party control is not charity, it is extorting people's hearts in a government power grab. If you give 50% of your income to government through taxation, what money have you left to be charitable with? It ain't about the money. It's about who the needy thinks gave them the money. It wasn't given to them by government out of the goodness of governments hearts, it was given to the needy out of The People's fear.- and the needy thank government.
All that aside, social welfare programs benefit all of society in numerous ways. First, a social net that keeps people from falling into poverty prevents economies from going into feedback loops. People lose their job, they have no money to spend, the economy shrinks, people lose their job. It can become a viscous cycle. Keeping people in the workforce after they lose their job prevents that poverty cycle. Second, where there is poverty, there is crime. Preventing people from turning to crime has many benefits for society as a whole. Reduced incarceration costs and reduced costs to victims of crime are the main ones. Third, a social net helps people to stay healthy. A healthy population has reduced health care costs and a better quality of living. These are all lessons that modern nations learned from the depression. It would be a shame to have to learn them again.
I believe it is theft. If the taxpayers were left their own money to be charitable with, they would probably be charitable. But instead the government takes the taxpayer's dollar and spends half that dollar to give fifty cents to the poor. It's a screw job. The government is taking monies that could otherwise go to the needy. And, the needy are best determined by local charity and individual people's discretion. Not some government "poor people get a Food Stamp Card" decree.
Yeah. The responsibility of speech comes from God too. That's the flip side of the coin. A society cannot practice a right unless they also practice the responsibility that comes along with that right.
Well, I agree that the free life is the one to lead. I would prefer it if the world had 75-90% fewer people than it has when I live it though. Unfortunately a planet of this size with this many people needs structure and order. Freedom is an important part of that structure and order. There is no one today who does not benefit from the human network. Being part of that network means having both benefits and costs. Yes you pay into an employment insurance plan here in Canada but when you lose your job you are glad you paid into it for years. I will never get as much money out as I put in but I also live with the security of knowing that if I lose my job I have a buffer so I can find the right job, not just any job, afterwards. Comparing a social net to charity is really difficult too. Charity is great but it’s at the whim of the giver and getting charity from the hand of the giver to that of the receiver has to be more organized than what charities provide. Government may have its faults but government ministries are far more scrutinized legally than charities are. Charitable organizations are often exploited for gain. For some wealthy people, that is what charities are for.
None taken. 1 Corinthians 14:4 -5 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; . . . . I would that ye all spake with tongues . . . . Where? In the holy spirit given by God. Kinda hard to take offense, when the person is benefiting from something God wants His children to do.
Ahh, wrong. You can't get any clearer than "I would that you all (Paul is speaking to the entire Church in Corinth) spake in tongues . . . ." Are you of the same mind as one of those present on the day of Pentecost that accused the Apostles of being drunk?
Not at all. I just think that what you call speaking in tongues and what I call speaking in tongues are two different things. I don't think anyone thought of Glossolalia as Christian speaking in tongues until the early 20th century.
I can't follow your reasoning. Jesus Christ has the authority to call men to his service and endow them with authority. Men can't justly call themselves to his service. To do so is an attempt to counterfeit Gods work and claim an authority not given to them. Matthew 7:22-23 So whether they pretended to baptize, speak in tongues, prophecy, cast out demons, or whatever in his name. It is all self serving, vain, and to no effect. It may as well have been a staged play. Yes emotions are involved. But there is no divinity in it beyond the zest of self deceit. In fact, it is an attempt to circumvent divinity by acting, posing, and parroting scriptures or events in the scriptures.
Difference of opinion is not unreasonable, however, I wonder how much exposure you've actually had to the practice or if you're just relying upon what you've heard about it. Most literature you'll find is not very favorable to it.
