Rejection of the Charasmatics and Biblical Literalism

It's at least as valuable as fear-mongering about "demons".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The only reason demons have to come up is that there isn't an explanation for some phenomena without them. Human powers aren't equal to some things, such as visits to "heaven" in which supposed wisdom is imparted to four-year-olds, and God doesn't tell lies, so supernatural experiences that impart lies are no doubt caused by demons. Demons certainly exist. Otherwise I'd rather not mention them on a secularist site. On the other hand, the idea of God doesn't get a better reception.

There are lots of other explanations if you look for them. I gave you one. Human imagination is equal to a lot of things. Four-year-olds have a lot of imagination. God doesn't tell lies but He allows demons to tell lies for Him? Or about Him? The certainty is in your imagination. Try selling hamburger to somebody who already has steak.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Tests have been done, but you wouldn't believe them anyway...Just go over to ex-christian.net and read their own admissions of how they just babbled lots of junk to fit in!

and of course most Marks will believe whatever they are told to believe and then their memory will tell them the event actually happened.Someone did a study a few years ago where they gave people who had visited disneyworld, false pictures that had Bugs Bunny hugging children in the park. About a third of those questioned "remembered" bugs bunny being there.

I don't see how you can draw that conclusion at all.Jesus used obviously fictional stories to teach truth (Prodigal Son, Lazarus and the Rich Man...etc)
Jesus stated that the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds and that it produced the largest of all shrubbery...both factually incorrect. However, His teaching point was well understood.
If Jesus would make use of fictional information in those cases, how can we automatically assume His references to Genesis validate the accuracy of the Genesis account of origins? Couldn't Jesus have simply been making a literary reference that would be understood by the majority of his audience?

"To fit in" is the operative phrase here.I knew a man who grew up in a church where speaking in tongues was regarded as a sign of a mature Christian. He was an exemplary husband and father, Sunday School teacher, leader of the boys' club - like a second father to me. But he was devastated because he had never spoken in tongues, no matter how "open" he was. Fortunately, he was also too honest to fake it.There is no doubt that some people don't have his strength of character and do fake it "to fit in".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I believe you have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion from what I said.I said nothing about believing it to be a God-given experience. As a matter of fact I had doubts about its source and legitimacy from beginning to end. But when it happened to me I certainly knew what it was.

How about giving me whatever facts you believe have been left out of the above account at Wikipedia? I'm aware that Augustine had some beliefs I would not share, as did many others in church history, no less than many in the churches today for that matter, people I consider to be genuine Christians despite many differences in theology.I don't see what this has to do with the simple factual question of whether or not tongues continued in the church. I'm aware that there were some groups -- the Montanists come to mind -- who claimed the gifts persisted among them. But they were out of the mainstream, unlike the Corinthian church, and are regarded as heretics by many.Of course "heretics" MAY in fact turn out to be on the right track as opposed the the mainstream churches nevertheless, if you want to claim that. It's certainly happened.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I believe in speaking in tongues, however, unlike those who I feel misreperesent the issue, it is not an on-demand function of a Christian, it is bestowed on only few. Some Christians are under the illusion that if you don't speak in tongues that somehow you aren't 'spirit-filled.' That's utter nonsense. I wonder where they derive such notions since the Bible is quite clear on the matter. Speaking in tongues occurs when you and the Spirit are finally not in duplicity, and even still, not everyone has this gift. Of those that do, it much more a personal relationship between the person who can do it and between God. It can be used for edification of the body but it was not intended to be. And should somehow speak in tongues, there must be an interpreter. I would strongly advise anyone who 'pretends' to speak in tongues, or 'pretends' to discern to knock that off. By doing so he/she brings Christ into disrepute."Pursue love, but strive eagerly for the spiritual gifts, above all that you may prophesy. For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to human beings but to God, for no one listens; he utters mysteries in spirit. On the other hand, one who prophesies does speak to human beings, for their building up, encouragement, and solace.

​

Whoever speaks in a tongue builds himself up, but whoever prophesies builds up the church. Now I should like all of you to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. One who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be built up.

​

Now, brothers, if I should come to you speaking in tongues, what good will I do you if I do not speak to you by way of revelation, or knowledge, or prophecy, or instruction? Likewise, if inanimate things that produce sound, such as flute or harp, do not give out the tones distinctly, how will what is being played on flute or harp be recognized? And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?

​

Similarly, if you, because of speaking in tongues, do not utter intelligible speech, how will anyone know what is being said? For you will be talking to the air. It happens that there are many different languages in the world, and none is meaningless; but if I do not know the meaning of a language, I shall be a foreigner to one who speaks it, and one who speaks it a foreigner to me. So with yourselves: since you strive eagerly for spirits, seek to have an abundance of them for building up the church.

​

Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray to be able to interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit is at prayer but my mind is unproductive. So what is to be done? I will pray with the spirit, but I will also pray with the mind. I will sing praise with the spirit, but I will also sing praise with the mind. Otherwise, if you pronounce a blessing (with) the spirit, how shall one who holds the place of the uninstructed say the "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? For you may be giving thanks very well, but the other is not built up.

​

I give thanks to God that I speak in tongues more than any of you, but in the church I would rather speak five words with my mind, so as to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. Brothers, stop being childish in your thinking. In respect to evil be like infants, but in your thinking be mature. It is written in the law: "By people speaking strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to me, says the Lord."

​

Thus, tongues are a sign not for those who believe but for unbelievers, whereas prophecy is not for unbelievers but for those who believe. So if the whole church meets in one place and everyone speaks in tongues, and then uninstructed people or unbelievers should come in, will they not say that you are out of your minds? But if everyone is prophesying, and an unbeliever or uninstructed person should come in, he will be convinced by everyone and judged by everyone, and the secrets of his heart will be disclosed, and so he will fall down and worship God, declaring, "God is really in your midst." So what is to be done, brothers? When you assemble, one has a psalm, another an instruction, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.

​

Everything should be done for building up. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let it be two or at most three, and each in turn, and one should interpret. But if there is no interpreter, the person should keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God. Two or three prophets should speak, and the others discern." -1st Corinthians 14:1-29

---

“If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner

I assure you, I have never seen any pheneomina that needed to be explained by 'demons'. I have not seen any evidence that demons exist at all. Maybe your imagination is not up to finding alternative explainations?

In general, I agree with your Bible interpretation on tongues.That doesn't mean I "believe" in it. I don't rule out "genuine" speaking-in-tongues completely, but I'm not convinced that any of the instances that I have witnessed were genuine.Nor would I say that all "non-genuine" instances were deliberately faked - I was only replying to a specific comment of Faith's. I can think of lots of other (i.e. better) explanations for what appears to be speaking in tongues. I would give the same advice to young-earth creationists.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I believe the example I gave is quite clear. I'm sure you simply deny that she had a supernatural experience. Of course there is no need for demons or God in that case. I would like to hear a description of that experience though to decide how convincing it sounds.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You gotta keep in mind who was suppossedly called mainstream at this time. Imo, the average heretical church probably had it more right than the RCs. It's funny to hear people today claim more affinity with Catholicism and the Catholicism of that era when if we compared their beliefs with the heretics and the Catholics, they would be in the heretical camp, and of course subject to torture and death at the hands of those oh-so sound RCs in terms of their mainstream "doctrine."Another thing to keep in mind is that what we know often of the heretical churches was written or writings were culled by the Catholics and so you cannot count on their accounts being true.The simple reality is the Church began and remains largely an organic community and institution, if you can even apply the term institution to it. Basically, from it's inception until today, it spread via people in a very non-heirarchal fashion with the deepest and cruelest heresies the result of the development of heirarchies bent on imposing their standards via violence on the other believers. You can decide who were the most heretical, but I'd say someone that misunderstood something like the Trinity was less heretical than those that believed God commanded them to slaughter men, women, and children in the name of Christ. By their love, the world would know the true discples.The Montanists appeared to have some heretical aspects to them, pretty much like 99% of churches, but they were noted, as most "heretics" were for their greater devotion, stricter morality and greater community.I think what I hear some say about their prophetic emphasis is indeed out of line, but at the same time, the fact they weren't trying to kill other believers, like the mainstreamers you and some others seem to venerate, goes a long ways to vindicating them as authentic Christians, despite their errors.

I did not see any example.. could you point a link to it?