Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
On the notion of an immaterial God it certainly is. For a materialistic world view, the Incarnation is a cinch to explain. But that's getting a bit off topic.So, is the incarnation gibberish as well?
I don't believe in spirits. Neither should you. That concept has its roots in Plato's incoherent philosophy, certainly not in Scripture.The idea that God cannot cause spirits to materialize is standard Christian belief.
On the notion of an immaterial God it certainly is. For a materialistic world view, the Incarnation is a cinch to explain. But that's getting a bit off topic.
I don't believe in spirits. Neither should you. That concept has its roots in Plato's incoherent philosophy, certainly not in Scripture.
The notion that the church is still sold on some magical fabrication of Plato gives ME a very bad impression.The notion that the presence of God is some radio wave, gives me a very bad impression.
Interesting.On the notion of an immaterial God it certainly is.
For a materialistic world view, the Incarnation is a cinch to explain. But that's getting a bit off topic.
I don't believe in spirits.
Shifting the burden of proof. God can pick any random language that He wants, for the unknown tongue. Who are you to dictate to Him what languages He can and cannot use? Show me in Scripture where it says He is NOT allowed to utilize angelic tongues? This is ridiculous.
(Sigh) Again, the Pentecostal doesn't NEED to prove that it is a non-human-language. The gift of tongues doesn't stand or fall on that. You're the one with the axe to grind here. You're the one insisting that it CANNOT be non-human and you've proven nothing of the kind. All you've proven is that you see yourself as having some kind of papal authority to dictate what God can and cannot do.
Nope. Because I am not asserting it. I'm merely allowing for that POSSIBILITY, instead of trying to tie God's hands.No, it is you that is shifting the burden of proof. It is not up to me to prove that tongues is NOT an angelic languages. If you are making that assertion, then the onus is upon YOU to prove it.
Eisegesis.The only description we have of tongues is that it is foreign human languages. Seeing as there is no other description in scripture to add or override that position then that is de facto definition.
The notion that the church is still sold on some magical fabrication of Plato gives ME a very bad impression.
Not anymore. After 12 years of it, I'd had enough.Interesting.
You don't belong to any church or denomination I've heard of, right?
Not anymore. After 12 years of it, I'd had enough.
Nope. Because I am not asserting it. I'm merely allowing for that POSSIBILITY, instead of trying to tie God's hands.
Eisegesis.
Ok find me some proof that immaterial substance exists. And are you familiar with the technical definition as underestood by professional theologians? Are you aware that it is logically incoherent? I'll share here one tenet of it (it only gets worse if I share more).Why magical? its just different.
It is also a possibility that pigs can fly. After all, all things are possible with God. Why aren't you trumpetting that as well?
Rubbish. You obviously don't know the meaning of the word.
Pigs flying isn't an everyday experience. Languages are. Also the possibility of flying isn't relevant to this particular debate.It is also a possibility that pigs can fly. After all, all things are possible with God. Why aren't you trumpetting that as well?
You inserted the word 'human' (i.e. you said human languages). That's not what the text said. You added to it, Ergo eisegesis.Rubbish. You obviously don't know the meaning of the word.
Ok find me some proof that immaterial substance exists. And are you familiar with the technical definition as underestood by professional theologians? Are you aware that it is logically incoherent? I'll share here one tenet of it (it only gets worse if I share more).
An immaterial spirit has no extension in space. It has no spatial dimensions, i.e., no size and shape. This flatly contradicts the biblical localization of the human soul to the human body. Although in math we can hypothetically define size-less points of space, any EXISTING point in space has size and shape.
It is therefore humanly incoherent to claim that the soul exists at a specific point or points in the human body but has no spatial dimensions.
They also state it like this, "A soul is indivisible into parts." Find me ONE location of the human body that is indivisible into parts.
This is gibberish.
Pigs flying isn't an everyday experience.
You inserted the word 'human' (i.e. you said human languages). That's not what the text said. You added to it, Ergo eisegesis.
Who said they weren't?No, it is as unlikely as humans speaking the language of angels.
So what are the languages of "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews", if not human?
You did, by accusing me of eisegesis in saying Acts 2 tongues were foreign human languages.Who said they weren't?
Rethink it - for God's sake, not for my sake. The traditional view is that God's perfections are innate instead of acquired over time by hard work. This implies that God merits no praise, it's like calling Him lazy and unaccomplished. It's like you saying to me, "The only thing you deserve credit for is being a human being."We went on this before, and all i can say that i'm not holder of truth 100% on this topic of course, but spirits as being spirit makes me at rest with my beliefs and that materialistic view, the 'grand total' that one that you spoke just gives me the creeps, God did not evolve in my view, and i really prefer him eternal like that.
What I meant is that you are reading that conclusion into ALL possible instances of tongues. That would be eisegesis.You did, by accusing me of eisegesis in saying Acts 2 tongues were foreign human languages.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?