Brainwashing children.....

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by adjensen
Nice effort at trolling, lol.

Pointing out your hypocrisy is now trolling?

Kindly point out how my original post on Pentecostalism, as demonstrated in the OP's video, was being hypocritical.

Barring that, yes, your reply is that of a troll.

Originally posted by adjensenKindly point out how my original post on Pentecostalism, as demonstrated in the OP's video, was being hypocritical

You described the way a different denomination chooses to worship using words such as 'crazy' 'ridiculous' and 'circus'.

And I pointed out that the way you and your denomination chooses to worship could also be described using those very same words.

It couldn't be any clearer......

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by adjensenKindly point out how my original post on Pentecostalism, as demonstrated in the OP's video, was being hypocritical

You described the way a different denomination chooses to worship using words such as 'crazy' 'ridiculous' and 'circus'.

And I pointed out that the way you and your denomination chooses to worship could also be described using those very same words.

In that case, you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word hypocrisy -- your opinion on the Catholic Mass has no bearing on my statements.

In addition, I cited empirical evidence that linguists have determined that "speaking in tongues" is not a legitimate language. If you care to cite empirical evidence (*) that refutes transubstantiation, feel free to post it.

(*) - means "science". Just so there's no more confusion on definitions

reply to post by Prezbo369


Nuclear energy, nuclear bombs, and gods - mankind isn't responsible enough to be using any of these three things.

Originally posted by adjensen
In that case, you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word hypocrisy -- your opinion on the Catholic Mass has no bearing on my statements.

You're holding double standards for two churches, describing how one worships as being 'crazy' 'ridiculous' and 'a circus', while attending and engaging in the apparently supernatural practices of your chosen church.

This along with the fact you complained about having your churches method of worship 'belittled' after doing the exact same thing to another church.

That is what makes you a hypocrite.

In addition, I cited empirical evidence that linguists have determined that "speaking in tongues" is not a legitimate language. If you care to cite empirical evidence (*) that refutes transubstantiation, feel free to post it.

You mentioned this evidence, but you didn't source it.

It's up to those making the claim to provide the evidence. You and your ilk are making the claim that the physical laws of the universe are suspended in the mouths of millions of catholics every week. This should be easily provable and would in turn do wonders for the catholic church. So the question is, why hasn't it already been proven?

Could it be that its merely taken on faith? a simple superstition? much like those that engage in Glossolalia?.....

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to [url= by Prezbo369[/url]

 

Nuclear energy, nuclear bombs, and gods - mankind isn't responsible enough to be using any of these three things.

Agreed, we're after all just short haired apes

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by adjensen
In that case, you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word hypocrisy -- your opinion on the Catholic Mass has no bearing on my statements.

You're holding double standards for two churches, describing how one worships as being 'crazy' 'ridiculous' and 'a circus', while attending and engaging in the apparently supernatural practices of your chosen church.

This along with the fact you complained about having your churches method of worship 'belittled' after doing the exact same thing to another church.

That is what makes you a hypocrite.

No, it doesn't -- I accused you of trolling, not engaging in legitimate criticism, as I did of the Pentecostal church in the OP's video.

You're essentially saying that, if some guy says "Americans are idiots" and you subsequently say "Muslims are idiots", you're a hypocrite because you're an American and some guy thinks that Americans are idiots.

Again, your opinion of the Catholic Mass has no bearing on my opinion of a Pentecostal worship service, and my comments are not hyporitical.

In addition, I cited empirical evidence that linguists have determined that "speaking in tongues" is not a legitimate language. If you care to cite empirical evidence (*) that refutes transubstantiation, feel free to post it.

You mentioned this evidence, but you didn't source it.

Here you go, Ace.

These reports vary somewhat in their specific technical conclusions, but in general there is consistency in the conclusions. The differences seem to stem from the fact that glossolalic speech varies in the degree of organization. Some glossolalia is very poorly organized and consists of little more than grunts and barely formed sounds, while other glossolalia is highly organized into systematic series of phenomes. Several linguistic studies, including our own, suggest that glossolalists develop their glossolalic speech from ill-formed structure to "Practiced" and "polisheX' glossolalic speech. Thus the linguistic qualities of the glossolalia depends to some extent on the stage of development of glossolalia.

The following seem to be reasonable conclusions from the linguistic studies. Glossolalia, in at least English-speaking subjects, is composed of the basic speech elements of English. The major difference consisting of lack of organization of the basic phenomes into the syntactical elements necessary for intelligible speech. The para-linguistic elements of speech, pauses, breaths, intonations, etc. are markedly reduced and modified. Thus glossolalic speech tends to resemble the early speech qualities of young children prior to the organization of all the variables associated with adult language. Further, there is a reduction in the distribution of phenomes, i.e. a limited phonemic catalogue is utilized by the glossolalists. The conclusions of the linguists cited is that glossolalia presents the characteristics of partially formed language without the formal characteristics of language. (Source)

Originally posted by adjensenNo, it doesn't -- I accused you of trolling, not engaging in legitimate criticism, as I did of the Pentecostal church in the OP's video.

Belittling another churches method of worship using words such as 'crazy' 'ridiculous' and 'circus' is now legitimate criticism?

You're essentially saying that, if some guy says "Americans are idiots" and you subsequently say "Muslims are idiots", you're a hypocrite because you're an American and some guy thinks that Americans are idiots.

Your analogy fails pretty hard as Americans and Muslims, while not mutually exclusive, are not in any way as similar as a Pentecostal church and a Catholic church (who are mutually exclusive).

Here you go, Ace.

Way to go sport, citing a 50 year old paper hosted on a 'Christian science' website?

'A small amount of research' indeed.....

Originally posted by Prezbo369
Way to go sport, citing a 50 year old paper hosted on a 'Christian science' website?

Yeah, complete fail on my part. I suppose citing a copy of The Origin of Species, hosted on talkorigins.org would be a complete fail in a debate with creationists, as well.

Legitimate science doesn't have an expiration date -- people aren't writing academic papers on it today because the phenomenon was pretty well linguistically disproven in the 1970s.

Originally posted by adjensen
Yeah, complete fail on my part. I suppose citing a copy of The Origin of Species, hosted on [url=[/url] would be a complete fail in a debate with creationists, as well.

TalkOrigins doesn't describe itself as a Christian Science webpage though......

Legitimate science doesn't have an expiration date -- people aren't writing academic papers on it today because the phenomenon was pretty well linguistically disproven in the 1970s.

Yup because science stops asking questions once someone writes a paper........

Can you source the paper elsewhere? surely if its considered a watertight conclusion it'll be hosted all over the web after going through the peer review process.

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by adjensen
Yeah, complete fail on my part. I suppose citing a copy of The Origin of Species, hosted on [url=[/url] would be a complete fail in a debate with creationists, as well.

TalkOrigins doesn't describe itself as a Christian Science webpage though.

No, it's a pro-evolution website, so if you're complaining about a scholarly work being "hosted on a biased site", in the instance of my original article, you must have the same complaint about TalkOrigins hosting a copy of Origin of Species. (For the record, I am pro-evolution, and have no problem with them hosting material that supports their perspective.)

Can you source the paper elsewhere? surely if its considered a watertight conclusion it'll be hosted all over the web after going through the peer review process.

Boy, you seem to think that linguistic analysis of speaking in tongues is that hottest topic going these days, such that people would be clamouring to scan in academic articles from the 1960s and 1970s and get them posted all over the web.

That said, this should help: LMGTFY -- I don't know that it's hosted all over the place, but it's certainly cited often enough.