Extra Stout: Give me your oppinion on Cessation.

[Ignignokt]

What do you think Paul says to us in Corinthians chapter 13.

For the longest time, i thought "perfect" meant the cannon at first. Then later on i waned between a partial preterist to full preterist viewpoint to justify the cessation of "Apostolic gifts".

What is your oppinion?

2cents
Travis
Jochejam

i also would love to hear your response.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think you need to love thy neighbor as thyself.

[Ignignokt]

I think you need to love thy neighbor as thyself.

thats easy to do. my neighboor is a hottie!

[Extra Stout]

I'm much better at exegesis than I am at loving my neighbor as myself, which according to 1 Corinthians 13 means that what I am about to say is worthless:

I think after relaying to the Corinthians in Chapter 12 that fighting over who has the better spiritual gifts is pointless, since they all come from the same Spirit, and all are part of the same Body with different functions, (and then points out, "oh by the way," that speaking in tongues is really not all that important of a gift), he ties it all up by saying that the most important gift is love.

He says that without love, all the other gifts are worthless. Furthermore, love is eternal. All these gifts that the Corinthians are so concerned about won't matter one bit when this world ends and the new heaven and earth are created. Right now we have a partial knowledge and prophecy of God; in the age to come we will be totally united with him and have perfect noesis; we will know fully just as God already fully knows us. There will be no need for prophecies, for tongues, for (rational) knowledge. The difference between how we think now and how we will think is like the difference between a child and a man. How we see now versus how we will see then is like the difference between a dim mirror and seeing face-to-face.

So rather than obsessing about speaking in tongues and healings, the Corinthians should focus on gifts of eternal significance, namely, faith, hope, and love, among which love is the most important.

He then goes in Chapter 14 to lay down guidelines about the proper use of ecstatic tongues, and on proper order in the liturgy, so that the gathering does not devolve into an unseemly chaotic cacophony.

I do not agree with the interpretation here that Paul is speaking of a coming cessation of these gifts. The point of Paul talking about prophecies, tongues, and knowledge ceasing is not to say, "For your information, in the next few decades, you may notice that as we apostles die off, you won't be speaking in tongues anymore. Also, you're going to lose knowledge and fall into gross error until the sixteenth century." Rather, he is exhorting the Corinthians to focus on loving one another instead of fighting about their gifts.

[Ignignokt]

so do tongues exist today under the guidance of GOd, as in guidance rather than guidance out of sovereignty.

also why do you think tongues died off?

[Extra Stout]

so do tongues exist today under the guidance of GOd, as in guidance rather than guidance out of sovereignty.

also why do you think tongues died off?
By "tongues," we must distinguish between ecstatic utterances and communication in unlearned langauges.

Ecstatic utterances are not unique to Christianity, whether in its primeval or contemporary Pentecostal forms. They are what the term says they are, utterances made while in the throes of spiritual ecstasy. I see no reason to claim that they have ceased. People who have very flamboyantly emotional spiritual experiences seem to have a tendency to go into ecstatic utterance. I will note, half-jokingly, that the churches which teach cessation tend not to have a very large number of flamboyantly emotional adherents.

Within this category, there is the "personal prayer language" where the ecstatic utterance is done is private, and the public utterance. The latter is what Paul is primarily concerned about in the Corinthian church. If in response to your post, I were to write, "Xdvajksrgaisdfv sdvjashkldfblsD SDFbaoe," I doubt you would get a lot out of it. So he insists upon somebody following up with a message in a comprehensible language.

Communication in unlearned languages is what is documented on the day of Pentecost, where the Apostles somehow were speaking the gospel in Latin and Cappadocian and Persian and Syro-Phoenician. This is a totally different matter from ecstatic utterance.

My personal experience is that when I was back in college, I fell into thinking that I needed big emotional experiences of God, and experienced the "personal prayer language." When I moved away from seeking those emotional experiences because I did a poor job of discerning emotion from biblical truth, the prayer language stopped. I do not belittle people who can handle their emotions properly and do experience that gift.

I've also had the experience of proficiently speaking a language I did not know nearly well enough to do so, in order to do exegesis on a Biblical passage.

Though I have experienced those things, I do not regard such experiences as central to my faith, so I do not run around trying to experience them over and over again. I do not think that is healthy.

[Ignignokt]

By "tongues," we must distinguish between ecstatic utterances and communication in unlearned langauges.

Ecstatic utterances are not unique to Christianity, whether in its primeval or contemporary Pentecostal forms. They are what the term says they are, utterances made while in the throes of spiritual ecstasy. I see no reason to claim that they have ceased. People who have very flamboyantly emotional spiritual experiences seem to have a tendency to go into ecstatic utterance. I will note, half-jokingly, that the churches which teach cessation tend not to have a very large number of flamboyantly emotional adherents.

Within this category, there is the "personal prayer language" where the ecstatic utterance is done is private, and the public utterance. The latter is what Paul is primarily concerned about in the Corinthian church. If in response to your post, I were to write, "Xdvajksrgaisdfv sdvjashkldfblsD SDFbaoe," I doubt you would get a lot out of it. So he insists upon somebody following up with a message in a comprehensible language.

Communication in unlearned languages is what is documented on the day of Pentecost, where the Apostles somehow were speaking the gospel in Latin and Cappadocian and Persian and Syro-Phoenician. This is a totally different matter from ecstatic utterance.

My personal experience is that when I was back in college, I fell into thinking that I needed big emotional experiences of God, and experienced the "personal prayer language." When I moved away from seeking those emotional experiences because I did a poor job of discerning emotion from biblical truth, the prayer language stopped. I do not belittle people who can handle their emotions properly and do experience that gift.

I've also had the experience of proficiently speaking a language I did not know nearly well enough to do so, in order to do exegesis on a Biblical passage.

Though I have experienced those things, I do not regard such experiences as central to my faith, so I do not run around trying to experience them over and over again. I do not think that is healthy.

OK, my experiences with this is that i feel that tongues or ecstatic tongues are a tool of confession. i feel that when i have experienced this i feel like i am expressing my inner most darkest desires and sins, that i feel i would be too blushed to describe.

But in all my life growing up in the pentecostal church i have never witnessed a case where someone gave a specific prophecy as to it not being too broad like " God says, Repent Children, For my coming is soon." type of deal. I've never seen anything specific just a lot of general God is near stuff.

But, when i did hear about judgement coming from those professing to speak in tongues, it was almost at time always a negative message or extortion to not anyone specifically.

One time this Preacher tried to interpret a "tongues" speaker and all he said was stuff that would scare the Jman out of you rather than edify.

So therefore whenever i visit a pentecostal gathering, i always feel a sort of anxiety because i just don't feel at ease with this practice. I feel like judgement is near, almost like impending doom.

It's a much different feeling than when i hear a John Macarthur Sermon, inwhich he does speak about sin and judgement, but i feel those type of sermons edify the believer and pass wisdom.

i don't know what to say, but that's my viewpoint.

I just feel that tongues and glossalia can be a tool of manipulation and rather complicate the gospel for me.

[Extra Stout]

OK, my experiences with this is that i feel that tongues or ecstatic tongues are a tool of confession. i feel that when i have experienced this i feel like i am expressing my inner most darkest desires and sins, that i feel i would be too blushed to describe.

But in all my life growing up in the pentecostal church i have never witnessed a case where someone gave a specific prophecy as to it not being too broad like " God says, Repent Children, For my coming is soon." type of deal. I've never seen anything specific just a lot of general God is near stuff.

But, when i did hear about judgement coming from those professing to speak in tongues, it was almost at time always a negative message or extortion to not anyone specifically.

One time this Preacher tried to interpret a "tongues" speaker and all he said was stuff that would scare the Jman out of you rather than edify.

So therefore whenever i visit a pentecostal gathering, i always feel a sort of anxiety because i just don't feel at ease with this practice. I feel like judgement is near, almost like impending doom.

It's a much different feeling than when i hear a John Macarthur Sermon, inwhich he does speak about sin and judgement, but i feel those type of sermons edify the believer and pass wisdom.

i don't know what to say, but that's my viewpoint.

I just feel that tongues and glossalia can be a tool of manipulation and rather complicate the gospel for me.
There are some who insist that people who don't speak in tongues are somehow deficient or even un-Christian. This is an aberrant view, one which Paul has an eye toward rejecting in 1 Cor 12. If tongues are being used as a tool of manipulation and control rather than edification, then they are useless. Also remember that Christians believe in a spiritual realm in which the Holy Spirit is not the only spirit, so if people are using visible signs like tongues to spread lies and discord, well, like I said before, non-Christians can speak in tongues too. John mentioned in his first epistle the necessity of discernment.

The UP's insist upon tongues as a matter of "salvation," but they reject the Trinity, and so aren't even Christian in any orthodox sense.

The A/G's I think are more evenhanded about it than any of the others.

But if it makes you stumble, then it is better just to stay away from it.

[Ignignokt]

There are some who insist that people who don't speak in tongues are somehow deficient or even un-Christian. This is an aberrant view, one which Paul has an eye toward rejecting in 1 Cor 12. If tongues are being used as a tool of manipulation and control rather than edification, then they are useless. Also remember that Christians believe in a spiritual realm in which the Holy Spirit is not the only spirit, so if people are using visible signs like tongues to spread lies and discord, well, like I said before, non-Christians can speak in tongues too. John mentioned in his first epistle the necessity of discernment.

The UP's insist upon tongues as a matter of "salvation," but they reject the Trinity, and so aren't even Christian in any orthodox sense.

The A/G's I think are more evenhanded about it than any of the others.

But if it makes you stumble, then it is better just to stay away from it.


Yeah, my parents being pentecostal, i hate it when theologians from the Church of Christ, or Reform Theologians like MacArthur lump Pentecostals with Charasmatics.

My parents don't believe in WOF, well atleast my father can describe the gospel orthodoxly, [Because man is a slave to sin through Adam, The WOrd of GOd came to become incarnate to become the Son oF Man, and Son of GOd to die on the cross so to justify us against GOD's righteous Wrath.]

I mean, he doesn't believe in the trinity, but he believes that God is Jesus and Jesus is the Father, and The Holy Ghost.

I think he's wrong on this, but i still see UP's as orthodox in the sense that they can still preach an effective gospel.

Now my Dad doesn't speak in tongues, never did, but he believes he's justified by faith, and he's a card carrying member of the Apostolic Assembly.

He never says tongues are necessary, and i hear nowadays alot of these UPC guys saying the same thing.

I admire the UPC's stance on Holiness but hate the fact that they still honor experience over exegesis, even though they might deny it.

When Reformation Theoligians and Calvinist make assumptions that UP's are like Charisamtics, it's faulty.

Charismatics are the ultraliberal movement of Pentecostals. If there's been rot it's the Charasmatic Movement to blame in my oppinion.

If there are denominations that will remain vigilant against Same sex marriage in the church, and women pastors in 50 years. It will be the UPC, a half remnant of Southern Baptist, some independent Presbys and Calvinist Reformed churches, and the Mormons to boot.

although Mormons are hyper arminians and they believe that works save and not grace, which is heresy.

I know i'm just ranting.

[Ignignokt]

edit, the son of God pre existed before the incarnation, not the son of Man.

[smeagol]

If there are denominations that will remain vigilant against Same sex marriage in the church, and women pastors in 50 years. It will be the UPC, a half remnant of Southern Baptist, some independent Presbys and Calvinist Reformed churches, and the Mormons to boot.

So will the Catholics.

[Ignignokt]

So will the Catholics.
so long as they keep electing Western europeans as pope.

[Ignignokt]

Ratzinger is da bomb!

[Extra Stout]

Yeah, my parents being pentecostal, i hate it when theologians from the Church of Christ, or Reform Theologians like MacArthur lump Pentecostals with Charasmatics.
I thought charismatics were just people who expressed the charismatic gifts but were in Catholic and Protestant churches rather than the Pentecostal ones.


My parents don't believe in WOF, well atleast my father can describe the gospel orthodoxly, [Because man is a slave to sin through Adam, The WOrd of GOd came to become incarnate to become the Son oF Man, and Son of GOd to die on the cross so to justify us against GOD's righteous Wrath.]

I mean, he doesn't believe in the trinity, but he believes that God is Jesus and Jesus is the Father, and The Holy Ghost.

I think he's wrong on this, but i still see UP's as orthodox in the sense that they can still preach an effective gospel.
That view is called Modalism or Sabellianism. It was declared an excommunicable heresy in AD 220, while the orthodox church was still underground (i.e. before Constantine "corrupted" it, as many Anabaptists/Restorationists claim). A heretical group in the third century called the Montanists espoused Modalism and also emphasized glossalia, healing, prophecies, and the other charismatic gifts. They are eerily similar to modern UP's.

In the early days of the church, the key point of theological contention was the nature of Jesus Christ. That was what was at stake at Nicaea, where Arius was denounced for claiming the Son was a creation of the Father, like what Jehovah's Witnesses claim. But by then, Modalism had long since been cast aside.

So many of the Restorationist sects that emerged in the 19th century and early 20th espouse the same Christological heresies as the splinter groups from the early church.


If there are denominations that will remain vigilant against Same sex marriage in the church, and women pastors in 50 years. It will be the UPC, a half remnant of Southern Baptist, some independent Presbys and Calvinist Reformed churches, and the Mormons to boot.
I wonder how many even understand why those things are not permissible, by which I mean why the Bible says what it says about these things. Egalitarianism is a very subtle error that seems right to the mind of one who does not understand Christian anthropology. And if insists upon cleaving to bad anthropology, it leads to bad Christology, and pretty soon you have the Episcopal organization, which Peter nailed in 2 Peter 2 almost to a T.

I rather think in 50 years the Protestant/Evangelical church will be down to less than 10 million, and half of those will be Latino. To the extent America remains a nation where Christianity persists, it will be so through Hispanics, primarily as Catholics.

Meanwhile, there will be 200 million new Christians in China.


although Mormons are hyper arminians and they believe that works save and not grace, which is heresy.

I know i'm just ranting.
Mormon deviation from orthodoxy goes far past Pelagianism. Arminianism is a Reformation theological system which Calvinists like to label "Pelagian" as a polemic. Mormons believe:
1) That Jehovah God once lived as a man from the planet Kolob
2) That he became God of Earth by living a faithful Mormon life on Kolob
3) That Jehovah had sexual intercourse with Mary, who then conceived Jesus
And so on.

[Oh, Gee!!]

i feel that when i have experienced this i feel like i am expressing my inner most darkest desires and sins, that i feel i would be too blushed to describe.

have you read some of your posts, Gtown? you blush?

[Ignignokt]

have you read some of your posts, Gtown? you blush?

:lol, no, trust me i love der females.

[Ignignokt]

I thought charismatics were just people who expressed the charismatic gifts but were in Catholic and Protestant churches rather than the Pentecostal ones.


That view is called Modalism or Sabellianism. It was declared an excommunicable heresy in AD 220, while the orthodox church was still underground (i.e. before Constantine "corrupted" it, as many Anabaptists/Restorationists claim). A heretical group in the third century called the Montanists espoused Modalism and also emphasized glossalia, healing, prophecies, and the other charismatic gifts. They are eerily similar to modern UP's.

In the early days of the church, the key point of theological contention was the nature of Jesus Christ. That was what was at stake at Nicaea, where Arius was denounced for claiming the Son was a creation of the Father, like what Jehovah's Witnesses claim. But by then, Modalism had long since been cast aside.

So many of the Restorationist sects that emerged in the 19th century and early 20th espouse the same Christological heresies as the splinter groups from the early church.


I wonder how many even understand why those things are not permissible, by which I mean why the Bible says what it says about these things. Egalitarianism is a very subtle error that seems right to the mind of one who does not understand Christian anthropology. And if insists upon cleaving to bad anthropology, it leads to bad Christology, and pretty soon you have the Episcopal organization, which Peter nailed in 2 Peter 2 almost to a T.

I rather think in 50 years the Protestant/Evangelical church will be down to less than 10 million, and half of those will be Latino. To the extent America remains a nation where Christianity persists, it will be so through Hispanics, primarily as Catholics.

Meanwhile, there will be 200 million new Christians in China.


Mormon deviation from orthodoxy goes far past Pelagianism. Arminianism is a Reformation theological system which Calvinists like to label "Pelagian" as a polemic. Mormons believe:
1) That Jehovah God once lived as a man from the planet Kolob
2) That he became God of Earth by living a faithful Mormon life on Kolob
3) That Jehovah had sexual intercourse with Mary, who then conceived Jesus
And so on.


ah modalism...:lol

God is the father then becomes the son then the HG. Yeah.

As far as the official statement of the UP's they do proclaim that exact thing. Yet when you conversate with them, the modal figure is actually proselytized version of

"God is ONe God with three manifestations, and many to count, but three primary manifestations that do communicate for the sake of it."

To me it doesn't make sense since calling The F/S/HG a manifestation, you would have a hard time explaining why there is a chain of authority in the Godhead.

I think UP's don't actually believe that Jesus is now only the Holy Ghost in Church age, but they believe that ONe GOd is all three. There issue is with personhood, Since they fear that seperating the Godhead into person's makes one a polytheist.

Alot of the their objections and biases towards Trinitarian doctrines are based on ignorance and fear of becoming heretic themsleves.

Now, as far as Montanus, the UP's don't have female apostoles who prophecy. Their heirarchy is male, and they don't proclame to bring extra biblical revelation like Montanus did. Their view on glossalia is that of it being is that it is a personal phropetic tool, and not one of JOhn the baptist or even the Apostoles.

[Oh, Gee!!]

:lol, no, trust me i love der females.

I don't think you understand my point. I'm not questioning your manhood. My point is that I find it strange to see you writing about your faith (and being ashamed of your sins) b/c I've read your posts. They are typically the most vile, hateful, perverse, and generally un-Christian posts in these forums.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=2542

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=9405

[Extra Stout]

Oh, Gee does have a point. A man claiming to be a Christian should have a posting history more closely resembling, say, Solid D, travis2, or jochhejaam.

[cool hand]

smoking is bad for you

[clambake]

hey iggy, why don't you ask your shrink for panacea?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Oh, Gee does have a point. A man claiming to be a Christian should have a posting history more closely resembling, say, Solid D, travis2, or jochhejaam.

or, at the very least not have one resembling a Satan worshiper

[Ignignokt]

I don't think you understand my point. I'm not questioning your manhood. My point is that I find it strange to see you writing about your faith (and being ashamed of your sins) b/c I've read your posts. They are typically the most vile, hateful, perverse, and generally un-Christian posts in these forums.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=2542

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=9405

perverse, i grant it to you.. i do attack other peoples manhood, and i'm refraining from that.

as to hateful...:lol ok. Unless i tell somebody to die, you have a point. I don't think christians have to be prudes.

THe things i'm ashamed of here is the name calling, gay jokes i say here as a christian. Other than that, i don't have a problem calling someone a fool.

So yeah, you win Oh Gee.

I'm a bad bad bad christian.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Turning a new leaf, Gtown? That's a good thing.

[Ignignokt]

Turning a new leaf, Gtown? That's a good thing.

As far as talking foul.. yeah

but being a pest.

ahhh...

we'll see.:hat

[Cry Havoc]

or, at the very least not have one resembling a Satan worshiper

Yeah, I have to say that I did a double take when I read this thread and compared it to it's author. Enough that I had to go back to ensure the name was spelled correctly and not just a troll. Pretty crazy, but I guess stuff like this happens on message boards.

[Phenomanul]

Excellent doctrinal evaluation of the spiritual gifts ES. :tu

[Ignignokt]

Yeah, I have to say that I did a double take when I read this thread and compared it to it's author. Enough that I had to go back to ensure the name was spelled correctly and not just a troll. Pretty crazy, but I guess stuff like this happens on message boards.

See i knew the usual suspects would come out and say something like this. I took the decision to post it anyways because i felt i needed an awnser to my confusion in christian faith.

I know you're genuinely surprised that some christians have a foul sense of humor and curse, instead of you're just beside yourself right now and you feel like you have to get a rise out of me. I mean, this is america with 80 percent professed christians, and Cry Havoc probably has never played any sports nor ever encountered any such kind of phenomena. Does that make me justified, no. I know what i'm doing, and i chose this bad behaviour because i don't see myself as a Walking Jesus Billboard, My faith is personal, and i try not to convert anyone in life or the message boards, nor do i seek a pastoral or other ministry. I feel like my christianity is personal, and i try not to front it out.

Having said that, this is a political message board and sometimes religion is discussed. i thought it would be proper to include a thread on religion, and deal with the consequences.

So to awnser your doubts, I am christian, but my weakness in my faith is my playful and mischeivious disposition. I know i say curse words, and derogatory remarks, but that is something i have to refrain.

Now having said that, you can call me a hypocrite or whatever. I never told you where to go pray or anything, so i don't feel bothered by it.

[Extra Stout]

I know what i'm doing, and i chose this bad behaviour because i don't see myself as a Walking Jesus Billboard

Now I can't say anything, given my problems with conceit, among other things, but...


You are the salt of the earth. But what good is salt if it has lost its flavor? Can you make it salty again? It will be thrown out and trampled underfoot as worthless.

You are the light of the world—like a city on a hilltop that cannot be hidden. No one lights a lamp and then puts it under a basket. Instead, a lamp is placed on a stand, where it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your good deeds shine out for all to see, so that everyone will praise your heavenly Father.

[Ignignokt]

Now I can't say anything, given my problems with conceit, among other things, but...

Jesus is Ronald Reagan..:lol

no seriously, i see your point, or rather Jesus's point.

[Phenomanul]

I can agree with most of Extra Stout's viewpoints. I would add that I generally feel disturbed by congregations that over-emphasize certain Spiritual gifts (the gifts of 'prophecy' and 'tongues' specifically) to the point where they teach that the practice of those gifts is a requirement for someone to become spiritually connected with GOD. This doctrine is not supported by the scriptures. In fact, Paul begins his admonition (of the Church of Corinth) by stating that Jesus himself endowed diferent members of the church with different gifts; all for the edification of the Church. So why would anyone teach that certain gifts are a requirement? Why would anyone cling to the hope of attaining a gift he/she wasn't given instead of embracing and using the ones that he/she was?

I once heard a charismatic pastor bash Rev. Billy Graham because he believed Graham wasn't a 'spirit-filled' christian (he equated the 'ability' to speak in tongues as being spirit filled). I was apalled to say the least. IMO Billy Graham took his primary Spiritual gift (the gift of evangelism) as far as his body could handle it, for as long as he could. I believe Graham fulfilled GOD's purpose for his life much better than many of us do - and he never once boasted about it; he just went out and preached the gospel.

Another thing that doesn't sit well with me is the fact that some churches try to 'teach' the gift tongues. In reading 1st Corinthians Chapters 12-14; even though I acknowledge the existence of those gifts (understanding their historical relevance to the rise of the early church - I'll expound on this later); I'm not too sure that 'tongues' are something anyone can teach. If those gifts come from the Holy Spirit; it is the Holy Spirit which bestows the gift (learning how to speak them comes pre-packaged with the gift itself; IMO the ability to break out in tongues is instantaneous). Even in the context of a 'personal prayer language,' Romans 8:26 hints that some of these 'utterances' are manifestations of the Holy Spirit working through us.

Something else, I'm not necessarily going to criticize the practice moreso than question its basis. When people fall over, or speak in an trance like state, or roll all over the ground - why must we necessarily lump all those events as being in the 'signs and wonders' category - those that the scripture says the Holy Spirit can do through us? For that matter, why would anyone be transfixed in some 'out-of-body' state? Paul clearly states that we should be 'fully conscious' of our speech. Like ES hinted, be wary of demonic forces which also manifest themselves in the spiritual realm, some perhaps mimicking what we believe may be the work of the Holy Spirit. The church must remain vigilant and discern such acts according to the scriptures.

As for the historical relevance of the gift of 'prophecy' the early church did not have the same luxury with regards to the written Word that we do. The biblical canon was not neatly compiled for everyone to read; in fact, the Word was still being inspired. The gift of 'Prophecy' hence, was required so that the Holy Spirit could guide the Church in those days. Be wary of people that approach you or anyone else claiming that they know your future, or events from your past that only you could know. Didn't Paul cast out 'fortune-telling' demons from a young slave girl in Philippi? Prophecy was given so that we could understanding GOD's will for our lives. Much of that guidance however is already at our disposal if we would just read the Scriptures as we were instructed to do.

I believe these gifts do still exist; that the temporal context of their cessation refers to time not yet upon us. I also believe that those gifts are much rarer than we are led to believe; I don't believe that everyone who claims to possess them actually does. But like ES mentioned, and Paul stated, we should press on to focus on the eternal gifts; specifically LOVE and it's many attributes.

[Tully365]

I'm not a Christian, though I was raised Catholic. I guess I would count my spiritual leaders as people like Montaigne, Giordano Bruno, Socrates, etc.-- more philosophers than holy men. But I've always had great friends in my life who've been religious-- currently one is a Methodist Pastor, and another is a practicing Jehovah's Witness, as is her entire family. So I just wanted to say that I admire and support you guys for coming on here and talking about these issues, especially knowing it might not necessarily be a popular thread. I may not agree with many things that you believe, but the whole point of this country and decent humanity in general is to allow difficult discussion to flourish and to allow us all to follow the many diverse paths that attract us.

For myself, I just know that avoiding friendships with people who are religious would lower the quality of my life, not raise it. In theory, it sometimes seems that surrounding one's self with those that think similarly would make life easy, but in practice I've found it almost inevitably makes life more restrictive, and less enjoyable.

[Ignignokt]

I'm not a Christian, though I was raised Catholic. I guess I would count my spiritual leaders as people like Montaigne, Giordano Bruno, Socrates, etc.-- more philosophers than holy men. But I've always had great friends in my life who've been religious-- currently one is a Methodist Pastor, and another is a practicing Jehovah's Witness, as is her entire family. So I just wanted to say that I admire and support you guys for coming on here and talking about these issues, especially knowing it might not necessarily be a popular thread. I may not agree with many things that you believe, but the whole point of this country and decent humanity in general is to allow difficult discussion to flourish and to allow us all to follow the many diverse paths that attract us.

For myself, I just know that avoiding friendships with people who are religious would lower the quality of my life, not raise it. In theory, it sometimes seems that surrounding one's self with those that think similarly would make life easy, but in practice I've found it almost inevitably makes life more restrictive, and less enjoyable.

:thumbsup

[Cry Havoc]

See i knew the usual suspects would come out and say something like this. I took the decision to post it anyways because i felt i needed an awnser to my confusion in christian faith.

I know you're genuinely surprised that some christians have a foul sense of humor and curse, instead of you're just beside yourself right now and you feel like you have to get a rise out of me. I mean, this is america with 80 percent professed christians, and Cry Havoc probably has never played any sports nor ever encountered any such kind of phenomena. Does that make me justified, no. I know what i'm doing, and i chose this bad behaviour because i don't see myself as a Walking Jesus Billboard, My faith is personal, and i try not to convert anyone in life or the message boards, nor do i seek a pastoral or other ministry. I feel like my christianity is personal, and i try not to front it out.

Having said that, this is a political message board and sometimes religion is discussed. i thought it would be proper to include a thread on religion, and deal with the consequences.

So to awnser your doubts, I am christian, but my weakness in my faith is my playful and mischeivious disposition. I know i say curse words, and derogatory remarks, but that is something i have to refrain.

Now having said that, you can call me a hypocrite or whatever. I never told you where to go pray or anything, so i don't feel bothered by it.

What, exactly, did I say that was "to get a rise" out of you? Did I criticize you? Did I attack you or state that I could not believe you are a Christian? I certainly never called you a hypocrite (that goes without saying, as every person I've ever met is a hypocrite). 80% of America might "profess" the name of God, but that is a huge difference between saying, "Yeah I believe in a God." and accepting Jesus.

I simply stated that I was surprised that after your numerous inflammatory, profanity-laden posts that suddenly you wanted to talk about the Man who stepped out on water and said, "Follow me." Perhaps you feel the need to defend yourself from me because of our other disagreements. On the other hand, might it be that you feel a little conviction? If you're really cleaning up your act, then you have my full support.

And I should echo what Extra Stout quoted from the Bible. Being a quiet Christian within the bounds of your safety zone is easy. I mean, it must be nice to know that you're living your days out waiting for the Rapture, right? But of all the things Christianity is, the last thing I would ever place upon it is being easy. It is a faith that forces you to acknowledge how imperfect you are every day of your life, and realize that someone died for you when He didn't have to. Among a thousand other things. Christian means, "Like Christ." And Jesus certainly didn't take the easy road for any part of the journey through life.

I'll post more later, as for now I must leave for a time.

[Oh, Gee!!]

See i knew the usual suspects would come out and say something like this. I took the decision to post it anyways because i felt i needed an awnser to my confusion in christian faith.

I know you're genuinely surprised that some christians have a foul sense of humor and curse, instead of you're just beside yourself right now and you feel like you have to get a rise out of me. I mean, this is america with 80 percent professed christians, and Cry Havoc probably has never played any sports nor ever encountered any such kind of phenomena. Does that make me justified, no. I know what i'm doing, and i chose this bad behaviour because i don't see myself as a Walking Jesus Billboard, My faith is personal, and i try not to convert anyone in life or the message boards, nor do i seek a pastoral or other ministry. I feel like my christianity is personal, and i try not to front it out.

Having said that, this is a political message board and sometimes religion is discussed. i thought it would be proper to include a thread on religion, and deal with the consequences.

So to awnser your doubts, I am christian, but my weakness in my faith is my playful and mischeivious disposition. I know i say curse words, and derogatory remarks, but that is something i have to refrain.

Now having said that, you can call me a hypocrite or whatever. I never told you where to go pray or anything, so i don't feel bothered by it.

I'm not calling you a hypocrite--not exactly. I'm just shocked to find out that you're a Christian. I would have never guessed it by your prior posts. But, if you're trying to change as this thread indicates, I support you 100%.

[jochhejaam]

So to awnser your doubts, I am christian, but my weakness in my faith is my playful and mischeivious disposition. I know i say curse words, and derogatory remarks, but that is something i have to refrain.


A sincere and contrite confession of our shortcomings personifies the quality of humility, overtly exhibited by Christ throughout his ministry.
Humility is at war with pride, and fighting that battle is perhaps the single most important element in the initiation of establishing a life changing relationship with God through Jesus Christ, and also in moving forward into effective servitude for and with Him.
Good stuff there GTown. :tu


Regarding the gifts, I don't believe in their cessation. I'm a believer, because of a personal experience, in the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the life of believers through what's referred to in the Bible in the following way; “If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water. <John 7>
Many services I had attended gave altar calls for salvation and often invitations to receive the Holy Spirit. I felt like that's what I wanted so I went up on more than a few occasions but without results. During one invitation for this I didn't go up, instead in my mind I made the prayer "God, if you want me to receive this gift, have someone ask me to go up to receive it", and within a few seconds, a church tapped me on the shoulder and said to me "it's time".
I'll leave the rest of that experience to the imiagination of interested readers as I don't believe there is any particular formula to be followed for this to happen, rather it's a personal, sacred rendezvous between a "thirsty" man and his Creator.


In my own Church (A/G) we have what may be referred to as "words of knowledge". Many of them seem to me to be mini-sermons, replete with a few general exhortations, ending with a "Thus saith the Lord". That bothers me, because If God directly uses someone as a conduit for his spoken work, I expect to hear something that raises the hair on my head, or is accented with peals of thunder (even though it's sunny outside), but I'm probably expecting too much.

Not wanting to appear as being to cynical, God can and does speak to us through others, and it can be in many forms, such as rebuke, exhortation, encouragement (of course, that with long-suffering and doctrine), etc.
Regarding "generic/general" words of knowledge, what may be interpreted by me as such, could very well be exactly what someone else needs to hear.


And that ends my random rambling for the day, Amen.

[marini martini]

Tongue speakers are fake, and creep me out!