It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Absolute Power of Christianity!

page: 62
7
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
What I'm saying is there are plenty of verfications and cross-referencing to validate these things.



Originally posted by spamandham
No there aren't.


Ah, so you have had the same exact experiences and learned the same things I've learned and do not believe? Phenomenal.

[edit on 29-9-2005 by saint4God]




posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Here's[/url] pages and pages of written testamonies of people healed in this one place in Spokane. Now they're opening up all over the place. I'm going to a church that will be opening a healing room soon, and I'll keep y'all posted. Amazing what the power of the Holy Spirit can do, and sad that we seem to have forgotten the promises in the Bible these days...


JJ, I have a few questions if you don't mind. The article didn't seem to state they were 'instantly' healed, rather through prayer and/or guidance from God on how to combat these things. Is that correct?

Also, do Pentacosts believe other denominations "have it wrong"? The reason why I ask is that's the impression they've been giving me. As in "you don't speak in tongues, you don't have the Spirit". Rather than argue, I just let them make their assessment and was on my way knowing otherwise. Have you noticed any of this? Also, do you believe that this kind of church service is going to attract people who are going to expect God to give them a miracle of their choosing, only to be disappointed if God says "no"? I've never equated God to a genie from a lamp and would expect Him to be unhappy with those who treated him that way. What kind of love is in that kind of relationship?



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Ah, so you have had the same exact experiences and learned the same things I've learned ...


I never said that. I don't need to have your experiences to know they don't prove what you claim.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
I never said that. I don't need to have your experiences to know they don't prove what you claim.


That's incredible, considering I've shared very little here. Sounds like you're going into the experiment expecting a lack of results. Well, seek and you'll find I guess.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I've actually noticed many denominations have this mentality, though most don't decide that you don't have the Holy Spirit if you don't have one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Personally, I don't know much about individual denominations. I suspect over the next few years I may be educated in what they are, but these schisms in the church I find really disturbing. As I said in that link in my signature, The Bride Of Christ Must Be United, one of my biggest turn offs from the church when I was in my teens was when a pastor told the congregation of a conversation he had with a minister of another denomination, also saved by Christ (though he didn't say that). They were saying that one of them would be going to Hell because of the doctrines they taught. That disgusted me more with God than with the pastor, because I didn't know God very well at that time. It played a large part in turning me away from the faith for over 8 years. As I write this, the Holy Spirit is putting a burden on my heart to pray for him, that he might see the true glory and mercy of the Lord and recognize that the Church, not his denomination, is the Bride of Christ.

As to the instant healing, many did have instant healing, others not so instant. However, healing is part of the atonement He promised us. We have to know that He has healed us just as He saves us when we come to Him. The woman in question came there for much prayer over two days. The people praying for her were moved by the Holy Spirit and told her she would be healed as she left, and that is what happened. Cal Pierce mentioned several examples where the person left not appearing any different, but they told them flat out, you are healed, and they were. Faith plays as much a role in healing as it does in believing you are healed.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
That's incredible, considering I've shared very little here. Sounds like you're going into the experiment expecting a lack of results.


Of course I am. I have a justifiable bias toward the natural. It will take some incredible evidence to prove that bias is unjustified. Being open minded doesn't mean you have no biases, it means you are willing to challenge those biases.

While it's true that I don't know the details of your case, there is a natural explanation nonetheless, which is that you are lying/exagerating. An alternative plausible explanation is that you are insane. The witness of an individual is not sufficient.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
That's right, Saint, if you don't agree with Spamandham or aren't in line with his world view, it means you're a liar!


Welcome to the lying club, Saint, it's very liberating



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
That's right, Saint, if you don't agree with Spamandham or aren't in line with his world view, it means you're a liar!


I didn't say he was lying, I said it's a plausible natural explanation. Actually, he and I have already agreed he's insane, not lying.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
I didn't say he was lying, I said it's a plausible natural explanation. Actually, he and I have already agreed he's insane, not lying.


ROFTL! Actually we agreed that you THOUGHT I was insane. My actual sanity I'll leave to the jury to decide, since as you said my witnessing is not sufficient. I guess that means your 'witnessing' assessment of my sanity is also not sufficient.

[edit on 29-9-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I think what Spamandham means to say is that in a logical argument, personal experience isn't considered valid evidence of a phenomena.

Logic tends to throw out anything personal, including personal attacks, and asks only that one takes events, rather than personal feelings, as valid.

It is why I tend to point not to my own experience, but to cascading failures in probability mathematics. Have any of you had events (if we are using this as evidence, a SERIES would be best) that, when taken apart of eachother, are not unnatural... but when occurring in a cluster together in a short amount of time, makes the probability of such events transpiring something like One in 10^100?



[edit on 9/29/2005 by TheCrystalSword]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
I never really understood this for 2 reasons. 1.) Speaking in tongues in Acts was so that everyone could understand no matter their native tongue.


the thing is, obviously my friend came out with this 'jiberish' (as that is usually what the speaking in tongues language usually sounds like to the listener), and people must have heard her, and she must have willingly spoke this 'jiberish'. the same as she willingly pretended her body was possessed and she couldn't move, or use her legs etc. at what point do you start to say 'hey this person might be a little crazy'.



2.) Did tongues of flame appear above her head? That's how I recall it being written. Was your friend Pentacostal? I don't know many other some extremely 'charasmatic' churches doing this.


the thing about these possessions and speaking in tongues...it just screams 'cult' to me. not sure if she's a pentacostal, but she doesn't go to a 'regular' church. she goes to some newly brick built baptist church.



Aha, reason # 3 that I don't understand. Why brag? Inherent need to be special?


not sure why she felt the need to brag, but it sort of made her feel smug that she was possessed and that everyone saw etc. i think there's some psychological aspects at work here for sure.



I feel ya. I can honestly say I've never been possessed, which is nice. I cannot imagine losing control of myself (which is opposite of 2 Timothy 1:7). I have felt things, but never lost control.


the thing is she remembers what happened, which makes me more suspicious. normally when you have a real out of body experience you don't always have a perfect memory of what happened. to me it sounds like she made it up because she described in detail what happened. OBE's are sort of like sleep paralysis, and temporal lobe epilepsy because of the fact that you don't actually 'know' what's going on, hence should have no recolection of the event.



I hope you do and will do anything I can to help.


maybe i'll just stumble across one day, as you did. so far i've done no 'stumbling' across anything. to be honest my friend who tells me about the tongues and possession puts me of christianity a lot, basically because it makes it seem less plausable.


Originally posted by saint4God
Do you believe you have to disregard evolution to be Christian?


this is a very good question. the short answer would be no. the reason for this is that a christian could say that he/she believes that god created evolution and put it in motion, whether it be cosmic, or micro-evolution, i see no harm in saying god started it. however, parts of evolution suggest that we once shared a common ancestor with apes, but christians still need to believe that god created humans. another flaw is that evolution needs millions and billions of years for it's process to be recognised, and again the bible if interpreted literally states the world is only 6000 years old. i do think if you're a christian and really believe in evolution, then perhaps it's time to re-think your beliefs within christianity, and whether those are 100% accurate. evolution theory sliced and diced might just fit with a christian's beliefs.


Originally posted by saint4God
Hehe, I was thinking of doing the same, but looks like you beat me to it. I can see how that's possible, so I'll trust and believe that it's true. I have faith that this is the case. I could test it but I'm sure I'd be wrong if I said otherwise.


i saw the paint shop pro idea online, and even after i saw both squares were 120 120 120, i still couldn't believe it, because they still 'looked' different.



From a 3rd party perspective I know what you mean. If I went back to me B.C. and told myself what I would believe in the near future, I'd blame everything but the idea that it's true. After a while though, you run out of possibilities to blame because they start to discount themselves with additional information over time. For example, the first time I'd heard God, I'd happened to be washing my face and it shook me up quite a bit.


why was this voice the christian monotheistic god, rather than any other numerous amounts of gods? i'm very curious to know.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
I think what Spamandham means to say is that in a logical argument, personal experience isn't considered valid evidence of a phenomena.


That's pretty much it, but it isn't limited to logical arguments. It's true anytime objectivity is applied.


Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
It is why I tend to point not to my own experience, but to cascading failures in probability mathematics. Have any of you had events (if we are using this as evidence, a SERIES would be best) that, when taken apart of eachother, are not unnatural... but when occurring in a cluster together in a short amount of time, makes the probability of such events transpiring something like One in 10^100?


Like what?



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Mark 16:16-18 (NIV)

16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."


Acts 19:5-7(NIV)

5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.


1 Corinthians 12:8-11 (NIV)

8To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.


1 Corinthians 12:28 (NIV)

And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.


1 Corinthians 14:1-3 (NIV)

1Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. 3But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort.


1 Corinthians 14:23 (NIV)

23So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?


We can learn several things from these passages. The first one, as spoken by Jesus, states that speaking in other tongues is a gift that will be given by the Holy Spirit, when He comes. It also mentions handling snakes and drinking poison, which I'm sure many will glom onto. This is because if we are fully anointed in Christ, disease should not be able to touch us. In this regard, I think back on something about John G Lake when he was ministering and healing in South Africa when the plague was breaking out there something fierce. Some medicinal types from England came down there to do what they could to help, but the plague was rampant. They saw this missionary there, though, and asked him how he could possibly not be dead.

He asked them to take some blood from a plague victim and look at it under a microscope. They could see many organisms moving about like what y'all probably saw way back when in 6th grade or so looking at pond water. It was alive. Then he asked them to place some of the blood on his hand and look at it under the microscope. There was no movement. He explained to them that Christ protected him and disease could not touch him.

When the Holy Spirit first came into believers, which was when they spoke in tongues and everyone understood them. That is also when the fiery tongues of flame appeared. That doesn't mean, however, that it must manifest its self in that way every time and in no other. Jesus never healed a single person the same way. Why would the Holy Spirit be restricted to do so?

Finally, those passages in Corinthians say a lot. It shows that speaking in tongues was not an isolated incident. It also shows that some who are in the Spirit have the gift of tongues, and some do not. What's also important to note is that some have the gift of interpretation of tongues. We must conclude, therefore, that not all tongues can be understood by everyone. Everyone speaking in tongues in Acts 2 may have been an isolated incident where everyone understood them, much like God giving Elijah the power to call down fire. Paul goes on to say that if unbelievers hear you speaking in tongues, will they not think you are out of your mind? This seems to indicate that speaking in tongues, as was common in the church, were not understood by everyone around. Believers understood what they were doing, but not even all of them could understand what was being said unless they had the gift of interpretation.

Speaking in tongues is giving your tongue over to the Holy Spirit on your behalf to speak directly to God, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:2. It is an act of faith, because you are no longer praying for what you want, but what God wants.

There is no indication anywhere in the Bible that these gifts of the Spirit will be taken from the earth at any time. None. That which applied to the Church in the days of Acts still applies today. The only difference is our culture and our beliefs. We don't believe these things can take place today because the culture has told us it is impossible. Because pastors have said those gifts only applied to the old church. Because we have become a religion of God believers, not God followers. We believe in Him, but we don't try to walk with Him. So many of us are Sunday Christians, while the rest of the week we sin knowingly, thinking, "everything is lawful, and God will forgive me in the morning." As such, the Enemy has a foothold in our lives, and we are blind to the promises of God.

God is Alpha and Omega. He is the same today as He was yesterday and He will be tomorrow. He has promised us these gifts. Why do we reject them, and denounce other Christians who do not?

[edit on 9-29-2005 by junglejake]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
There is no indication anywhere in the Bible that these gifts of the Spirit will be taken from the earth at any time. None. That which applied to the Church in the days of Acts still applies today.


"Speaking in tongues", aka glossolalia, precedes Christianity historically, and is not unique to Christianity even today. Voodoo, Buddhism, dervishes, Islam, Mormonism, Shamanism, Peyote cult, and others also experience this.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   
EDIT: JJ needs to learn the meaning of "preceeds"


experience it, or fake it? You can't really take both stances...

[edit on 9-29-2005 by junglejake]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
experience it, or fake it? You can't really take both stances...


Why not? Some experience it, others fake it. Why must it be either/or?



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
The witness of an individual is not sufficient.


I find it very interesting that a witness's testamony is not sufficient to convince you that something may actually be taking place, even if they have the reasoning wrong, yet it is enough to convict a person in a court of law to death.

Also, the reason I didn't think it could be both is because you have been asserting that it doesn't happen, unless I misread, which I may have. If people do experience it, what is it? Why is it that, even those who don't have the gift of interpretation, can pick out words in what they're saying and understand what those words are, but only after having done it for a while? That seems unusual for talking in jibberish.

EDIT: Just to get this out there so I don't have to talk in complete thoughts



Why not? Some experience it, others fake it.


How do you know this? What scientific data do you have that shows some are faking while others are really experiencing it?


[edit on 9-29-2005 by junglejake]



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
It is why I tend to point not to my own experience, but to cascading failures in probability mathematics. Have any of you had events (if we are using this as evidence, a SERIES would be best) that, when taken apart of eachother, are not unnatural... but when occurring in a cluster together in a short amount of time, makes the probability of such events transpiring something like One in 10^100?


Like what?

Well, I haven't personally had very many such instances, and mine are not clusters of cascading failures on the part of statistics. However, have you ever seen the movie "Magnolias"?

Tom Cruise plays a Male Chauvinist Self-Empowerment Guru in this one, if you think I mean "Steel Magnolias" you'd be wrong.

In any case, the Movie opens up with I do believe three true stories before proceding into the actual fiction.

What I often find either fascinating or disturbing is the following; You consider yourself a rational man, Spamandham. This is all well and good, and much respect to you for it. However, I want to ask you this... if there IS a god (let us assume momentarily there is), but science can explain away things that in the past would be considered "Miracles" such as fish raining from the sky in Brazil (Which has happened), does this mean science is correct in assuming there isn't a God because there's another reasonable explanation... or is it that Science itself has entered the field of unreasonable and become a religion in it's own right?

Consider this... if you as a person hear science explain how something happens, and it is reproducible, that means it is true in a regular persons view, right?

What if the Universe functions in ways we understand ONLY because God Wills it? This results in Science being a blaspheme in that it cannot accept that another reason may exist, even though it is considered an unreasonable one.

As a scientist myself, I like to examine reason and unreason side by side. I find that much of what science consideres "Unreasonable", such as Magick, God, Spiritual Existence, etc. is often quite reasonable within the context of a field obeying it's own subset of rules concerning reality not parallel to our own, but intersecting.

Which leads me now to my personal belief, one of which I hope dearly I am incorrect about for the sake of many people. Consider if you will there is a oscillating reality overlapping our own that has a cycle of thousands of years or so. Currently I feel that the field interaction at the best sites on earth with this reality is negligable at best, though observable by some.

Science has brought us so far in such a short time, an amazing miracle in and of itself. What happens when the foundations of science cease to be true? Things all scientists must agree upon because it is the basis for all theory coming after it? What happens when this alternate reality oscillates back into our universal level of awareness and makes much scientific "Rule of Thumb" violate and no better than trash?

This I see happening, and have since I was quite young. As a scientific mind, I assume the possibility that much of this is merely psychological in my own belief of my self importance. I keep that in mind for all things I do. However, as a scientist myself, I also must accept even the remote possibility I may not be wrong.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
How do you know this? What scientific data do you have that shows some are faking while others are really experiencing it?


you could turn it around and say what scientific data shows they are really experiencing it...the answer is none. back to my friend who says she has spoken in tongues, her parents and church prayed for this to happen when she was about 9...is this the right way to go about it? she's always telling me about the young children at her church too, and saying that it was great that they were all speaking in tongues the other day. just seems so fake. no scientific data says people are really experiencing it, the same as no scientific data has ever prooved faith healing is real or anything more than just a placebo affect.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheCrystalSword
I want to ask you this... if there IS a god (let us assume momentarily there is), but science can explain away things that in the past would be considered "Miracles" such as fish raining from the sky in Brazil (Which has happened), does this mean science is correct in assuming there isn't a God because there's another reasonable explanation... or is it that Science itself has entered the field of unreasonable and become a religion in it's own right?


okay...because you say fish have rained from the sky, we just believe you right? what were they salmon, trout, perhaps some species of shark


i don't think science is 'out to get religion' because 200 years ago most scientists would have believed in god. the only reason they don't is because 150 years ago a guy named darwin had an idea. an idea that religion didn't like, and still don't like...even though the pope accepts it, and the arch bishop of canterbury. so we have scientists, and the very top people in religion who accept evolution as a process...but it's still an unreasonable theory to believe in?



What if the Universe functions in ways we understand ONLY because God Wills it? This results in Science being a blaspheme in that it cannot accept that another reason may exist, even though it is considered an unreasonable one.


wrong. science can accept another reason may exist. like i said 200 years ago most/if not all scientists were religious. the thing about science is that it changes and reshapes it's beliefs. science is never shut to new ideas...whereas christianity is very much so shut.



Science has brought us so far in such a short time, an amazing miracle in and of itself. What happens when the foundations of science cease to be true? Things all scientists must agree upon because it is the basis for all theory coming after it? What happens when this alternate reality oscillates back into our universal level of awareness and makes much scientific "Rule of Thumb" violate and no better than trash?


what exactly are the ''foundations'' of science that are going to make science cease to be true?



This I see happening, and have since I was quite young. As a scientific mind, I assume the possibility that much of this is merely psychological in my own belief of my self importance. I keep that in mind for all things I do. However, as a scientist myself, I also must accept even the remote possibility I may not be wrong.


you might be a scientist but you don't seem to have a clue what science is actually about.




top topics



 
7
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join