Excuse me, but I believe I first accused you of not reading anything anyone writes. Do you think by continuing to copy off the things I say
to you that you will somehow appear smarter?
If anyone speaks they speak on their own behalf. I regard my religion and beliefs as fact; if I did not they would not be beliefs. Therefore if you challenge a religious belief, and one provides justifiable accounts beyond their religious texts, then you should in effect find what it was you were looking for.
You alone asked for support and I gave you it. Now that me and AdminAsgara chit-chatted a bit about the specifics of the debate, you now intervene with your own two-cents as to appear reasonable the entire time. The fact of the matter is, you asked for support on something I spoke regarding myself and my beliefs. Just because you have different objectives and viewpoints on matters doesn't mean I am in-tune with you. I am not your soulmate, I do not know your requirements for something to be considered a real language.
If tongues is spoken by people, and I have texts telling me it is a real language, and then people turn to me and tell me it isn't real, it's gibberish, then I have the right to then turn and say it is real.
If I do not, then I am now requesting you provide factual evidence that tongues is gibberish, beyond faith, or otherwise withdraw
your claims. It's a two-way street buddy. Before being overlyconfident, I would suggest you evaluate your own claims.
And for the record, I will use your own judgements here on such matters, and since I was told the only acceptable option of support for my beliefs was to withdraw my claims of tongues being a real language, I'll assume you'll have enough sense to withdraw your claims that tongues is anything but a real language.
This is a two-way street to all who wish to become involved; it is Creation vs. Evolution, and if I will be oppressed and attacked for my religious beliefs which tell me that fact of religion should be considered off-the-bat true, unless you can prove otherwise, then I do expect the same respect in return since the unreligious people here are demanding respect on their beliefs that something ought not be considered fact off-the-bat. If you desire respect for the belief that something not be considered fact without proof, then for your sake I will remind you that the other half of us also demand respect that our beliefs be considered fact without question unless you can prove it isn't.
I never read anything telling me I have to conform to unreligious standards. These forums, from what I've got the impression of, are divided. Religion vs. nonreligion.
Therefore I demand now respect for my beliefs, unless you admit your demands are selfish and wrong.
You have provided absolutely no proof of tongues not being a real language, nor gibberish. Nor have you provided proof there is no God, so I will demand proof of your claims. I also demand proof and support that the Bible is not archaeologically accurate, nor scientifically accurate in anyway.
Otherwise withdraw all your claims as you have enslaved me to do.
One you have provided proof and support (oh, yes mike, you have done a veeeeery poor job in doing so so far) for all your claims, then you may make more. And I suggest you be very careful, for every claim you demand of me, and everything you say (for as long as you rudely oppress faith.), I will demand likewise.
And nobody can tell me I'm wrong here, because the fact is the basis of religion is that those who believe it consider it fact by nature. Therefore if unreligious people consider something unfactual by nature, I see no reason why those who are religious should have to conform to unreligious beliefs. That in itself is oppressive of religion and is one-sided, and I hope now you see my point, as I am making myself clearer.
I've been trying to get this point across, and I think now I have used the right words.
™ Version 4.2