God: more questions than answers

[Kenny]

No, certainly not combative... but certainly not addressing the problem I raised earlier either (the problem of the man's speech getting him immediately dragged out of church) - and I understand why... I just hope that you understand why also.

I suppose I am missing some context - but I am trying to figure this one out. So... what you're getting at here is that Jesus invited these men to come hear him speak and "give the answers", but they each had an excuse to bow out? So... here's the real problem I have with this: I was in a sermon once where a man stood up during a particularly high "in the spirit moment" where there were people laying their hands and foreheads on the ground, moaning, casting about, or speaking in tongues - the man who stood up began saying things like "I am the way and I have been with you since the beginning..." - pretty obviously speaking as if he were some form of "Second coming" in the first person - at least this is what I interpreted and was the vibe I got off of him. However - no sooner had he started into it with those words than at least 5 other church members grabbed his arms and dragged him out of the church despite his verbal protests. Now... here is my problem... what if those other church members - or indeed ALL of those church members were, in this instance "not really going to try", or were "not going to seek answers" or were "not going to knock on the doors of opportunities"? What if this man's apparent epiphany was actually God speaking through him, or some other divine intervention that was an opportunity for them all? How could they SO EASILY seem to know that it wasn't and just dismiss him. I think we both know the answer... and that is precisely how quickly and easily I can dismiss that anything you have to offer from your religion as being not worth the effort. I have oodles of experience with it, and as soon as I hear you talking, and can catch wind of where the conversation is going, then it is decided. Unless you miraculously pull off a grand slam of evidence and cogent demonstration, I will shut you down. Any time I have listened, can you guess how many times a religious person has actually had something novel and worthwhile to say that convinced me of something? Zero. Zero times. You would say that this is because I have closed my mind to the possibilities... but this simply isn't true. I let them say their piece - I always do. But in the end, it is never anything compelling in the slightest. Never. No one should be swayed by the types of things that are said by these people. Not one. The fact that anyone is is a mark of shame on humanity in my opinion.

The problem with your request is that you are asking me to comment on what happened without any before or after information. For that matter, I don't even know the protocols of that church. If there were five people ready to drag him out, it gives a hue of the possibility of him having been talked to, warned et al.

Was he spoken to before? Was this an issue where he has done it before? Was he warned? Are there protocols? Are you any different when you said "I will shut you down"?

So, you want me to be prosecutor, defense, judge and jury with only your perspective of what happened.

That wouldn't be wise NOR does it address the issue of believing in the New Testament or answer the questions of an inquiring mind about the subject matter.

Do I believe in tongues? yes Have I seen abuses thereof? yes. Do I understand that people can make mistakes? I'd like to know who doesn't. Does it change who Jesus is and what He did and does? Nope.

So what is your real question?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The problem with your request is that you are asking me to comment on what happened without any before or after information. For that matter, I don't even know the protocols of that church. If there were five people ready to drag him out, it gives a hue of the possibility of him having been talked to, warned et al.

Was he spoken to before? Was this an issue where he has done it before? Was he warned? Are there protocols? Are you any different when you said "I will shut you down"?

No... I am not. The main point being there is that at least I admit it... and don't accept this craziness to begin with, such that I won't be caught being a complete hypocrite like the pastor and others of that church. They get up and say ALL SORTS of stuff that is only slightly less presumptuous than that guy standing up and starting in on a "I am the second coming of Christ" monologue. And yet that guy gets the boot! You want to go all in on magical thinking and make-believe time... then go ALL IN. They can't sit there and pretend their brand of make believe is "so much better" than some other guy who is no less doing his thing than they are. They just happen to be a little more suave about it... mind their P's and Q's a bit more, and in doing so get away with stating all sorts of complete trash as supposed "facts." It's absolute craziness.

So, you want me to be prosecutor, defense, judge and jury with only your perspective of what happened.

No. I am only asking you to see the hypocrisy in the scenario I described. These people can throw their hands up, pray to the lord, knock a few people over, or claim that someone's finger grew back onto their hand during a prayer session - and then they drag a man out of the church for doing something just about on par with shenanigans like those.

That wouldn't be wise NOR does it address the issue of believing in the New Testament or answer the questions of an inquiring mind about the subject matter.

Again - I understand why you don't want to comment. Please just realize yourself why that is. Introspection. Try it.

Do I believe in tongues? yes Have I seen abuses thereof? yes. Do I understand that people can make mistakes? I'd like to know who doesn't. Does it change who Jesus is and what He did and does? Nope.

Shalababa lalabalasa. Shebala sualabalala. You see? I have the "power" to speak in tongues! You cannot deny it of me! Mwuahahahaha!

So what is your real question?

Do you see the hypocrisy, yes or no? The hypocrisy in people spouting off about all sorts of things they can't verify, and then tackling a man who does something no different from that, just because it doesn't fit their cozy, comfy versions of "belief" and "worship." Again - you either believe all this crap is actually tied to God and some supernatural realm or you don't. And if you do, then you cannot rightfully deny someone else their supposed knowledge of such realms. After all... you can't really produce any more evidence than they can that you are correct.

 

[Kenny]

No... I am not. The main point being there is that at least I admit it... and don't accept this craziness to begin with, such that I won't be caught being a complete hypocrite like the pastor and others of that church. They get up and say ALL SORTS of stuff that is only slightly less presumptuous than that guy standing up and starting in on a "I am the second coming of Christ" monologue. And yet that guy gets the boot! You want to go all in on magical thinking and make-believe time... then go ALL IN. They can't sit there and pretend their brand of make believe is "so much better" than some other guy who is no less doing his thing than they are. They just happen to be a little more suave about it... mind their P's and Q's a bit more, and in doing so get away with stating all sorts of complete trash as supposed "facts." It's absolute craziness.

I am glad we have you to be the judge. With you viewing people we can know that there will be no hypocrisy.

Again - I understand why you don't want to comment. Please just realize yourself why that is. Introspection. Try it.

No... I gave you a good reason.

Shalababa lalabalasa. Shebala sualabalala. You see? I have the "power" to speak in tongues! You cannot deny it of me! Mwuahahahaha!

You remind me of an italian who burst into the church rapidly saying about his motorcycle "dey stola my honda" - and they said "YOU GOT IT"

But, regardless, in the time of the outpouring, they thought they all were drunk and you know how people sound when they are drunk as a skunk

Do you see the hypocrisy, yes or no? The hypocrisy in people spouting off about all sorts of things they can't verify, and then tackling a man who does something no different from that, just because it doesn't fit their cozy, comfy versions of "belief" and "worship." Again - you either believe all this crap is actually tied to God and some supernatural realm or you don't. And if you do, then you cannot rightfully deny someone else their supposed knowledge of such realms. After all... you can't really produce any more evidence than they can that you are correct.

Then again... here you are doing the same thing?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I am glad we have you to be the judge. With you viewing people we can know that there will be no hypocrisy.

I only call it like I see it.

No... I gave you a good reason.

By your estimation perhaps. I don't think it was a good reason whatsoever.

You remind me of an italian who burst into the church rapidly saying about his motorcycle "dey stola my honda" - and they said "YOU GOT IT"

But, regardless, in the time of the outpouring, they thought they all were drunk and you know how people sound when they are drunk as a skunk

Do you agree with me, however, that if you want to "speak in tongues" and blab a bunch of syllables of any sort, that you should not, in any way, judge another person's blathering of this sort as "inadequate", "wrong" or "not in keeping with the spirit?" That it would be hypocritical to do so?

Then again... here you are doing the same thing?

Doing what "same thing?" Being a hypocrite? How do you figure? I am not the one who states that the man who stood up and started blabbing about being the second coming was going against the grain of the rest of them. From my perspective, its all just a ridiculously funny show. I don't put any stock in any of it... but I don't see that man as any more or less incorrect in his views than any of the people in that church on that day. I wouldn't have called him out any differently than I would call any of them out for their lack of evidence, their inability to sufficiently justify their actions, etc. I am all for equal treatment of all of them... no hyprocrisy here.

 

[Kenny]

Do you agree with me, however, that if you want to "speak in tongues" and blab a bunch of syllables of any sort, that you should not, in any way, judge another person's blathering of this sort as "inadequate", "wrong" or "not in keeping with the spirit?" That it would be hypocritical to do so?

Did Paul give instructions on speaking in tongues and prophecy?

Doing what "same thing?" Being a hypocrite? How do you figure? I am not the one who states that the man who stood up and started blabbing about being the second coming was going against the grain of the rest of them. From my perspective, its all just a ridiculously funny show. I don't put any stock in any of it... but I don't see that man as any more or less incorrect in his views than any of the people in that church on that day. I wouldn't have called him out any differently than I would call any of them out for their lack of evidence, their inability to sufficiently justify their actions, etc. I am all for equal treatment of all of them... no hyprocrisy here.

"From my perspective, its all just a ridiculously funny show." - it isn't the first time that someone judged me from 'their perspective" without knowing all the facts.

You don't have to put stock in any of it. But for someone who doesn't put stock in it, you seem to have big opinions about it.

So, go ahead and judge the church just like the church judged the man. No difference at all.

 

[DNB]

Oh... is that what I should have been looking for this whole time? Perhaps that is what Christianity is made of? High comedy? I think you might be onto something...

You're the only one cracking the jokes around here.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So, go ahead and judge the church just like the church judged the man. No difference at all.

This is what I am trying to tell you. YES, there IS a difference. You just don't want to see it because you would just love to be able to dismiss me.

I don't do these wacky "belief" things. I just don't. There is either good, solid evidence for a position I have adopted or I realize it is nothing but opinion and will readily admit that. But THE CHURCH does do these wacky belief things... and so when they drop-kick another person doing these wacky belief things out of their presence, just because they didn't agree with his form of wackiness, when they have no more justification for their own positions in this vein, and have said things just as far-removed from "fact" as this "second coming" guy did. THAT'S hypocrisy. To have little to no justification for your position as the man you are "so sure" is just making his stuff up. Ridiculous.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW KEN?

 

[Kenny]

This is what I am trying to tell you. YES, there IS a difference. You just don't want to see it because you would just love to be able to dismiss me.

I guess that sword can cut both ways.

I don't do these wacky "belief" things. I just don't. There is either good, solid evidence for a position I have adopted or I realize it is nothing but opinion and will readily admit that. But THE CHURCH does do these wacky belief things... and so when they drop-kick another person doing these wacky belief things out of their presence, just because they didn't agree with his form of wackiness, when they have no more justification for their own positions in this vein, and have said things just as far-removed from "fact" as this "second coming" guy did. THAT'S hypocrisy. To have little to no justification for your position as the man you are "so sure" is just making his stuff up. Ridiculous.

Again... you don't know all the details and I certainly don't know all the details so I'm not in the position to judge. I have seen some situations in our church where the people at large didn't know all the details (because we don't publicize it) and they came to wrong conclusions... so I can see where you can be mistaken.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW KEN?

Certainly, but (if you are shouting) - it does seem like it is you that is ruffled. Certainly I am at peace with you and the world.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Certainly, but (if you are shouting) - it does seem like it is you that is ruffled. Certainly I am at peace with you and the world.

i'll be sure to keep all letters lowercase so as not to upset your delicate sensibilities.

why is it that people like to point out "feelings" they think are in play rather than actually responding to content? plenty of people seem to literally love the opportunity to dismiss someone once "feelings" are perceived to come into play. it's a huge load of crap... and to me only further underscores the idea that the one doing the decrying of "feelings" or "profanity" or "hostility" is actually just frightened to respond and would rather take an easy way out. one thing i have never done (that i am aware of) is tell someone their feelings were getting in the way of their making an actual point. the point is either there or it isn't, and that is what i respond to. you should do the same... lest you be seen in a particularly unflattering light. sort of like the way i see you now.

p.s. please check over and make sure i kept everything lowercase for you. would hate to have you lose that "peace with the world" you were so keen on bragging about.

 

[Kenny]

i'll be sure to keep all letters lowercase so as not to upset your delicate sensibilities.

why is it that people like to point out "feelings" they think are in play rather than actually responding to content? plenty of people seem to literally love the opportunity to dismiss someone once "feelings" are perceived to come into play. it's a huge load of crap... and to me only further underscores the idea that the one doing the decrying of "feelings" or "profanity" or "hostility" is actually just frightened to respond and would rather take an easy way out. one thing i have never done (that i am aware of) is tell someone their feelings were getting in the way of their making an actual point. the point is either there or it isn't, and that is what i respond to. you should do the same... lest you be seen in a particularly unflattering light. sort of like the way i see you now.

p.s. please check over and make sure i kept everything lowercase for you. would hate to have you lose that "peace with the world" you were so keen on bragging about.

You are really funny.

I responded to content but you ignored it. You show your feelings and then turn around and talk about other people's feelings.

Could you do me a favor... I looked above post and actually didn't find any content at all.

For all your posting, this is what I have figured out about what you are saying:

1) You don't like people speaking in tongues (as if you were the one who dictates when it is right and when it is wrong... in that particular case you determined it is all wrong.)
2) Someone got taken out and you didn't like it (feelings). You gave us no before details , if he had been spoken to, what he said if at all, if he was out of order (by the church's standards)
3) You don't like Christians (at least that is the appearance you have given)
4) You like judging everyone.

Now... give me some substance and where I was wrong and why and where I understood correctly

 

[DNB]

i'll be sure to keep all letters lowercase so as not to upset your delicate sensibilities.

why is it that people like to point out "feelings" they think are in play rather than actually responding to content? plenty of people seem to literally love the opportunity to dismiss someone once "feelings" are perceived to come into play. it's a huge load of crap... and to me only further underscores the idea that the one doing the decrying of "feelings" or "profanity" or "hostility" is actually just frightened to respond and would rather take an easy way out. one thing i have never done (that i am aware of) is tell someone their feelings were getting in the way of their making an actual point. the point is either there or it isn't, and that is what i respond to. you should do the same... lest you be seen in a particularly unflattering light. sort of like the way i see you now.

p.s. please check over and make sure i kept everything lowercase for you. would hate to have you lose that "peace with the world" you were so keen on bragging about.

WHERE IN THE FLIPPIN' WORLD DID YOU GET THAT QUOTE FROM!
Wasn't me - did you forge my name on that quote?

 

[Spirit of Light]

WHERE IN THE FLIPPIN' WORLD DID YOU GET THAT QUOTE FROM!
Wasn't me - did you forge my name on that quote?

May I ask Are you an angry Christian person?
I have looked around the forum, and every time your name is there when you answer other people's questions or you comment on their answers. All I see is anger Isn't Christianity about love and kindness? and to end the anger from within your own being?

I know you will probably attack me, but I will accept that. I do not mind. And I do not hold anger toward you.

 

[Kenny]

WHERE IN THE FLIPPIN' WORLD DID YOU GET THAT QUOTE FROM!
Wasn't me - did you forge my name on that quote?

It was my quote that he was answering.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You are really funny.

I responded to content but you ignored it. You show your feelings and then turn around and talk about other people's feelings.

so, if i try and pull some intended "response" out of everything you actually responded with, i would have to say that you are dead-set against the idea of calling anyone a hypocrite without further information.

so, basically, some people who make things up and posit them as fact up without reality-based justifications should, in your mind, be entirely able to do so while also pushing down, refuting, or stopping-in-their tracks other people who are making things up and positing them as fact without reality-based justification. is that all correct? that's what i am getting from you. and sorry to burst your bubble, bub - but that means that at any time, any religious person of any conviction should be able to shut you down and drag you out of their services if what you say or do isn't in line with their chosen make believe. and let's face it - because your words/actions will obviously be in contradiction with their expectations of what is "truth" in that scenario it most certainly means that at least one of you is making things up. but you're adding that if you are a known trouble-maker in their circles (which could just mean that you have simply brandished your version of "truth" and they didn't like it) then they are perhaps completely justified in throwing you out on your butt - even though they will then go on to make claims just as crazy and unsubstantiated as your own. all sound good to you? am i reading you right?

Could you do me a favor... I looked above post and actually didn't find any content at all.

do me a favor first and don't be dense. 'kay?

1) You don't like people speaking in tongues (as if you were the one who dictates when it is right and when it is wrong... in that particular case you determined it is all wrong.)

while it is true that i don't like people speaking in tongues that is not at all at issue. it doesn't matter what i like or don't like. i am specifically pointing out a case in which i think people are being hypocritical. so while i might judge someone a complete and utter dolt when i witness them speaking in tongues at least i am consistent! anyone, however, who wants to do something just as unsubstantiated as "speak in tongues", but doesn't like how or when other people do it is a hypocrite. do you understand? i am consistent in judging it all as complete nonsense. however the hyprocrites - that is, the religious types who buy into one brand of nonsense that they like, but denounce other brands of nonsense that they don't like - are not consistent. make sense?

2) Someone got taken out and you didn't like it (feelings). You gave us no before details , if he had been spoken to, what he said if at all, if he was out of order (by the church's standards)

completely incorrect. based on the things that were being said by many multiple parties within that church - they all should have been thrown out on their butts. that's my take. if they wanted to be consistent about throwing out people who were not speaking well-established, reality-based portions of knowledge, then all of them should have been under the gun. not just that one guy. if anything - i was on that one guy's side only because i could see how unbalanced his treatment was compared to all of the other idiots in that congregation who were lying to each other and just getting pats on the back for it. believe me - i also would have wanted that guy thrown out on his butt... but i also would have wanted to see the pastor thrown out, and his wife, and all the people who pretended to be painting what "god was sending to them", or who laid their face on the floor in tears because "the spirit" had taken hold of them. in order for the whole ordeal to remain consistent, they all should have been dragged out by their armpits. that's what i am saying.

3) You don't like Christians (at least that is the appearance you have given)

this is absolutely correct, and i readily admit it. but, again, my personal views are not the issue here. consistency is the issue.

4) You like judging everyone.

believe me... the last thing i want to have to do is call everyone out for what i see as their inconsistency and their hypocrisy. the last thing i want is for people to literally be inconsistent and be hypocrites. but that isn't the world we live in... and so i am doomed to call all of these people out. do i like doing it? no. will i continue to do so in order to try and make people realize how they appear to others? hell yes i will. hell yes.

Now... give me some substance and where I was wrong and why and where I understood correctl

you're still calling me out for my personal opinions and feelings, so apparently you haven't understood a single thing i have been saying. it's no surprise to me, really. i mean... look at what you are willing to believe! obviously there are a few things going on there that likely relate to comprehension or ability to process information in an unbiased manner.

 

[Kenny]

I left out the emotional issues because I rather deal with facts.

so, if i try and pull some intended "response" out of everything you actually responded with, i would have to say that you are dead-set against the idea of calling anyone a hypocrite without further information.

t you're adding that if you are a known trouble-maker in their circles (which could just mean that you have simply brandished your version of "truth" and they didn't like it) then they are perhaps completely justified in throwing you out on your butt - even though they will then go on to make claims just as crazy and unsubstantiated as your own. all sound good to you? am i reading you right?

Close. there are various issues here and positions that I have as foundation for life that dictate how I respond to people and issues. So there are layers of importance for me, not necessarily for you.

1) Judging. You can judge actions without judging the person. Example. My son lied to me but I would never call him a liar. Calling him a liar would be cementing him is an unchangeable position whereas if I just judge the action (he lied) - I am judging the action and not the person. So, a church may have committed a hypocritical act but I would never call the church hypocrites. I use James Chapter 3 for this position as well as others.

2) Yes, you are correct, I would hesitate judging a situation without knowing all the details. Let me share an example:

I did marital counseling recently. i listened to the wife and was thoroughly convinced that the husband was completely at fault. Then I spoke to the husband and realized that she really didn't give me the before and after.

So, yes and definitely, I would want to know all the information before I judge something or someone.

Even the Apostle Paul called Peter on a hypocritical act, but I would never call Peter a hypocrite. I would call him a Christian that committed a hypocritical act.

3) if you are a known trouble maker and the church is kind enough to say "Please come... we just don't want you making trouble" - and proceeds to make trouble... then they were in their right to do so. At least in my view.

while it is true that i don't like people speaking in tongues that is not at all at issue. it doesn't matter what i like or don't like. i am specifically pointing out a case in which i think people are being hypocritical. so while i might judge someone a complete and utter dolt when i witness them speaking in tongues at least i am consistent! anyone, however, who wants to do something just as unsubstantiated as "speak in tongues", but doesn't like how or when other people do it is a hypocrite. do you understand? i am consistent in judging it all as complete nonsense. however the hyprocrites - that is, the religious types who buy into one brand of nonsense that they like, but denounce other brands of nonsense that they don't like - are not consistent. make sense?

To give you due where due is appropriate, it may have indeed been a hypocritical act. I'm just saying there just isn't enough information for me to determine it.

So, in a true life experience, in our church we allow for people to speak at times. there is an appropriate place for that to happen. A woman began speaking and ultimately I had to ask her to please sit down. If you were a newcomer, you would say "Wow, that was hypocritical. He let some speak but not her". However, they wouldn't know that she was a person who loved attention and was shown to be wrong in times past. It was explained but she persisted in wanting her way.

Just to say... you may be right but I wouldn't be able to ascertain that with the limited information you gave me.

completely incorrect. based on the things that were being said by many multiple parties within that church - they all should have been thrown out on their butts. that's my take. if they wanted to be consistent about throwing out people who were not speaking well-established, reality-based portions of knowledge, then all of them should have been under the gun. not just that one guy. if anything - i was on that one guy's side only because i could see how unbalanced his treatment was compared to all of the other idiots in that congregation who were lying to each other and just getting pats on the back for it. believe me - i also would have wanted that guy thrown out on his butt... but i also would have wanted to see the pastor thrown out, and his wife, and all the people who pretended to be painting what "god was sending to them", or who laid their face on the floor in tears because "the spirit" had taken hold of them. in order for the whole ordeal to remain consistent, they all should have been dragged out by their armpits. that's what i am saying.

OK... I accept that you have your perspective. However, there are cases when people having been spoked to, corrected, told nicely "please don't continue" and then more sternly "if you do that again, you will be removed".

With the information you gave, me (at first glance and not knowing the full details) I would lean toward the later of the two. The reason is simple. If 5 people were ready to cart him off, that means they already knew what he was capable of and were ready to deal with it if he didn't respect the decision.

IMV, he most likely was a notorious for the actions he did. (Of course, I wasn't there and don't know all the information... just judging by what you shared)_

Could you have been right? Maybe.

believe me... the last thing i want to have to do is call everyone out for what i see as their inconsistency and their hypocrisy. the last thing i want is for people to literally be inconsistent and be hypocrites. but that isn't the world we live in... and so i am doomed to call all of these people out. do i like doing it? no. will i continue to do so in order to try and make people realize how they appear to others? hell yes i will. hell yes.

Not doomed at all. And you have every right. However, if you do that in a court of law, they will cart you off too.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

IMV, he most likely was a notorious for the actions he did. (Of course, I wasn't there and don't know all the information... just judging by what you shared)_

Could you have been right? Maybe.

the man was, at least, eclectic, and a known misogynist. he was a complete butt-hat if you ask me. but does any of that disqualify him from receiving some words from god and speaking them, do you think? please answer this honestly... at least to yourself if you are unwilling to post anything publicly.

Not doomed at all. And you have every right. However, if you do that in a court of law, they will cart you off too.

which points to a huge problem in the way we all function, and allow our society to function. if inconsistencies should just be tolerated based on the fact that those with "the might" in a particular situation just get carte blanche, then that is a sad, sad state of affairs. you're basically saying i shouldn't judge those people as hypocritical, or call out their actions as such because it was their house to do whatever the heck they wanted in. i would ask why the hell they let me in the door in the first place then, and also who has the authority to actually dispense such judgment upon them (and please, please do not say "god" - that's a cop out - "i'll judge you when you're dead" says god, which does none of us a damn bit of good down here). because in the end, if someone is being inconsistent in some way, i would like to see them have to answer for it... even if it is myself!

 

[Kenny]

the man was, at least, eclectic, and a known misogynist. he was a complete butt-hat if you ask me. but does any of that disqualify him from receiving some words from god and speaking them, do you think? please answer this honestly... at least to yourself if you are unwilling to post anything publicly.

No... it definitely doesn't disqualify him. This is how we handle it since the Bible says that every prophecy should be judged. We ask the people (if it is prophecy) to please come up to the front (at the appropriate time) and let the leaders judge whether it is on point. The exception would be for those people who are known to be on point.

Now, that being said, if he is a known mysogynist and a butt-hat - I would say to him (Hey Johnny, please do me a favor, if you have a word from God make sure you tell it first to those in charge ) If he was consistently off.... I would ask him not to speak until he learned more.

It is quite possible that his misogynist bias may corrupt what he is saying. Was that your first time visiting? if not, did he do it before?

which points to a huge problem in the way we all function, and allow our society to function. if inconsistencies should just be tolerated based on the fact that those with "the might" in a particular situation just get carte blanche, then that is a sad, sad state of affairs. you're basically saying i shouldn't judge those people as hypocritical, or call out their actions as such because it was their house to do whatever the heck they wanted in. i would ask why the hell they let me in the door in the first place then, and also who has the authority to actually dispense such judgment upon them (and please, please do not say "god" - that's a cop out - "i'll judge you when you're dead" says god, which does none of us a damn bit of good down here). because in the end, if someone is being inconsistent in some way, i would like to see them have to answer for it... even if it is myself!

No.. .that isn't what I am saying at all. We let people in the door no matter what lifestyle they are in or what burden and scars they carry. However, order is important. We don't want the crowd saying what they want to say in the middle of a marriage ceremony. Because they let me in the door , I had a life change. But I followed the decorum that was set.

Not sure about the "I'll judge you when you are dead" since Jesus presents us faultless with joy before the Father.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The exception would be for those people who are known to be on point.

and this exposes the true problem at hand. who judges what is "on point" when the subject matter does not conform to a reality that can be checked and verified in any way? such a is the case with something like "speaking in tongues."

this problem, by the way, is the very reason I reject all of it, equally, and in a consistent manner. the day someone provides an actual way to verify the correctness (or the on-pointedness if you prefer) of what they are doing in these types of endeavors is the day that i will be willing to have my mind swayed.

 

[Kenny]

and this exposes the true problem at hand. who judges what is "on point" when the subject matter does not conform to a reality that can be checked and verified in any way? such a is the case with something like "speaking in tongues."

this problem, by the way, is the very reason I reject all of it, equally, and in a consistent manner. the day someone provides an actual way to verify the correctness (or the on-pointedness if you prefer) of what they are doing in these types of endeavors is the day that i will be willing to have my mind swayed.

You have every right to reject all of it... we believe in free will. I am not trying to "sway your mind". You are an intelligent person and your decision is yours... I can respect that.

But the reason why is very simple: If you have a family it is the father and mother that determines if the statement or decision of the child is "on point' or not. Not to mention that Jesus said there would be wolves in sheep's clothing. "Elders" (which has nothing to do with age - necessarily) are those who have a testimony of knowing what is right. They are suppose to be mature people in God. (not saying that everyone is but rather the general viewpoint). Otherwise you would have mayhem.

Speaking in tongues has a process that Paul gave us (not saying that everyone follow it - I just speak for myself)
1 Corinthians 14:26-28
King James Version
26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

1 Corinthians 14:40
Let all things be done decently and in order.

There are forms (that can differ from church to church) - that are processes for things to be done in order. In one church they don't allow speaking in tongues. I wouldn't do it in church if I were present.

Sometimes the problem is simply "I don't understand".

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You have every right to reject all of it... we believe in free will. I am not trying to "sway your mind". You are an intelligent person and your decision is yours... I can respect that.

which means you must necessarily expect how you appear to a person like myself when doing something like speaking in tongues. and there can, honestly, be little to no defense forthcoming from you except what boils down to "i like doing it."

But the reason why is very simple: If you have a family it is the father and mother that determines if the statement or decision of the child is "on point' or not.

oof... big and obvious problem here. sometimes the actions of parents toward their children based on what they felt the child did that was not "on point" can be disagreed with by everyone but the parents. ever hear of gabriel fernandez and his treatment at the hands of his mother pearl fernandez and her boyfriend? if anyone agrees with the treatment that boy received by those two absolutely disgusting monstrosities of human beings then they should have any and all contact with kids revoked from them for the rest of their lives. why else would there be cases in which the state deems it necessary to take children away from their parents, and do you honestly think that there are zero cases in which you would agree with the state's decision, and that you ,personally, would instead rule that the parents were justified in their actions because "the father and mother determine if the statement or decision of the child is 'on point' or not." before you defend yourself with the idea that parents neglecting or making certain decisions is all the parents' doing, and has nothing to do with decisions or judgments about what the child has done, please keep in mind that garbiel fernandez was locked in a cabinet, beaten, and ultimately killed partly because his mother and her boyfriend suspected he might be gay based on the fact that during a time he was taken away from his mother by the state, he was placed with two gay uncles. you can guarantee anything he decided to do to further that ridiculous, inconsequential narrative triggered them. not to mention the fact that gabriel several times "decided" to inform his teacher or other authorities what was going on... and when the cops showed up at their door and his mom talked them down out of any charges or repercussions every single time, they decided that his actions were not "on point" and would treat him even more severely for it. to the point that he just stopped telling people, and would reply to their questions instead that nothing they did would actually help. that is the possibility of parents... just other fallible people, like their children. the blind leading the blind. some of us apparently don't realize that the only chance either blind person in that scenario has is to help each other the best that we are able.

Not to mention that Jesus said there would be wolves in sheep's clothing. "Elders" (which has nothing to do with age - necessarily) are those who have a testimony of knowing what is right. They are suppose to be mature people in God. (not saying that everyone is but rather the general viewpoint). Otherwise you would have mayhem.

i would argue that christianity is mayhem. please estimate for me the number of denominations, and then we can stop and try to have a rational conversation about what is "right" within christianity... which must necessarily end in the statement "i am not sure." at the very best.

1 Corinthians King James VersionHow is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation.

the answer to this seems incredibly obvious to me. i mean, he is talking about people when he mentions "brethren" right? done. there is your answer.

1 Corinthians 14:40
Let all things be done decently and in order.

again, who decides what is decent? or what is in order? and what reality-based prescriptions or models can they point to as their justifications? without those... they have nothing. i can write stuff in a book all day, my friend. all day long. all night too. doesn't mean any of it is true. no matter how old that book ends up being when someone picks it up. that is simple, cold fact.

There are forms (that can differ from church to church) - that are processes for things to be done in order. In one church they don't allow speaking in tongues. I wouldn't do it in church if I were present.

so, again - a reference to might makes right, isn't it? whoever is in rulership of the church at the moment determines what is "in order"? right? i mean... that's what you're describing. so whether or not they have any plausible justification for their edicts makes absolutely no difference, as long as they are the ones in power within that space.

Sometimes the problem is simply "I don't understand".

and if someone can't adequately describe something in order to get another to understand? who then is at fault? is there a way we can verify with an impartial party? ooh... there's an idea. unfortunately, that method would see religion falling on its face literally all the time. just "bam!" and then "bam!" and then "bam! bam! bam! bam!" it would be a wonder that the church had any face left after the number of falls it would take.