[Zimphire]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
Go ahead, deny it. Everyone knows its true.

Yes everyone

The southern stereotype is an uneducated religous person. There are reasons stereotypes exist; they're somewhat true.

- Ca$h

You are projecting now Cash.

Simply propaganda you are spreading. Guess what, I have been and lived in the places you talk about. Most AREN'T religious. Most worship at the alter of NASCAR and velvet Elvis paintings and Budweiser.

You are showing your naiveness now.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
Hardly. I come from a upper/middle class suburban neighborhood, not remotely redneckish, poor, or uneducated.

Then why do you act as if you don't?

But good idea! When I bring up something you can't refute and you don't want to admit I'm correct, just attack me as a person with made up qualities, that'll work!



- Ca$h

Can't refute? I believe I did over and over again. You brought no proof to the plate but "Because I said so, and "Everyone knows"

That isn't providing evidence for you silly bias. Come on cash, if this is true, lets see some cold hard facts.

You made the statement the proof is on you.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
Hardly. I come from a upper/middle class suburban neighborhood, not remotely redneckish, poor, or uneducated. But good idea! When I bring up something you can't refute and you don't want to admit I'm correct, just attack me as a person with made up qualities, that'll work!



- Ca$h

and there were no churches in your neighborhood? completely devoid of churches? you didn't attend one as a child or no one of your socioeconomic caste attended church?

I seem to recall you claiming to have been raised in a church at some point...if my recollection is correct, then you must be an uneducated southern redneck...right?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
um...hate to break it to you, but ca$h was being serious.
He has a real obsession for christian-bashing. Just wait, and pretty soon he'll start accuse specific christians of being child molestors and get banned again.

That was actually pretty funny when he did that. Reminded me of a South Park character. Like if someone made a skinny Cartman that drove a Subaru. Ok, so lets stop picking on Cash, and lets get back to the discussion.

What was it exactly?

[imaxxedout]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that if a city has a church that it's going to be poor and uneducated....

HOWEVER... in the south, there are many towns that are filled with poor uneducated people, and they'll have many churches, and believe extremely strongly in god.

It's simple. If your life is somewhat dim (no money, nothing exciting, nothing to look forwards too) you turn to the church.

Why you are arguing this is beyond me. I'm not saying that IF you turn to the church you are poor, uneducated, etc etc. I'm saying that IF you are poor, uneducated, don't have anything to look forward too, chances are you'll be gung-ho christian.

- Ca$h

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that if a city has a church that it's going to be poor and uneducated....

HOWEVER... in the south, there are many towns that are filled with poor uneducated people, and they'll have many churches, and believe extremely strongly in god.

It's simple. If your life is somewhat dim (no money, nothing exciting, nothing to look forwards too) you turn to the church.

Why you are arguing this is beyond me. I'm not saying that IF you turn to the church you are poor, uneducated, etc etc. I'm saying that IF you are poor, uneducated, don't have anything to look forward too, chances are you'll be gung-ho christian.

- Ca$h

backpedal away.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
backpedal away.

You noticed that too?


BTW cash, starting poll topics in the lounge, isn't in any way proof of your biggotness.

[imaxxedout]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
backpedal away.

I'm not backpedaling. This is exactly what I've been saying the entire time.

POOR COMMUNITIES TEND TO HAVE MORE CHURCHES.

POOR COMMUNITIES TEND TO HAVE EXTREMELY STRONG BELIEFS IN GOD.

That's a ONE way thing. You can't turn my words around and make me say "Anyone who believes in god is poor and uneducated"; I've never said that, nor do I believe it.

However, I do believe you'd find things quite interesting if you polled educated people and uneducated people on 'god'. The less intelligent crowd would be all over jebus.

- Ca$h

[BRussell]

Wow, Cash vs. Zimphire. This is better than Tonya Harding vs. Paula Jones.

*Grabs Doritos and Budweiser, turns off wrestling, and clicks "refresh"*

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by boots:
For an issue with that much at stake (life, let alone liberty and the pursuit of poperty...I mean happiness), we need to be carefull withour definitions. This kind of transcends the boundries you are creating. I would think an effective argument can be made that the termination of life is a trampling of the minority's right to life...etc.

In another context, capitol punishment could be viewed through the same lense.

I guess the question really is, to who's liberty are we defaulting? The majority? What about the explicit intent to protect the rights of the minority?

Yes, but the questions of minority and majority rights and liberty come AFTER you decide whether or not a collection of cells or a death-row in-mate qualify.

In the case of abortion, we're clearly dealing with a philosophical question about the nature of life and personhood itself.

Not only is a secular democracy not equipped to answer such questions, we should vehemently oppose the notion that it should answer such questions. It must default to Liberty.

In instances like this, Liberty will allow for those on either side of the philosophical divide to act according to their conscience and live with the consequences.

That is the genius of starting out with Liberty as the foundation, not any particular moral code. All constraints on Liberty are challenged and only agreed upon when compelling to do so.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
I'm not backpedaling. This is exactly what I've been saying the entire time.

POOR COMMUNITIES TEND TO HAVE MORE CHURCHES.

POOR COMMUNITIES TEND TO HAVE EXTREMELY STRONG BELIEFS IN GOD.

That's a ONE way thing. You can't turn my words around and make me say "Anyone who believes in god is poor and uneducated"; I've never said that, nor do I believe it.

However, I do believe you'd find things quite interesting if you polled educated people and uneducated people on 'god'. The less intelligent crowd would be all over jebus.

- Ca$h

the only thing more misinterpreted than actual statistics are bar bet statistics "I bet if you polled people, I'd be right!".

all I can say is...wow...I hope you're not trying to palm yourself off as intelligent here...if so, it ain't workin.

[Timo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Timo, you're a low-down dirty post whore for starting this thread.

Get yer own thread post-whore magnet.

[boots]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


That is the genius of starting out with Liberty as the foundation, not any particular moral code. All constraints on Liberty are challenged and only agreed upon when compelling to do so.

Hmm. sounds like an adoption of a lot of libertarian ideals mixed into a Republic...

I do agree that most of what gets legislated is crap. Good manners and simple respect for human life should cover most of it.

Unfortunately we don't (as a country) seem to have those two things. So we are back to "How do you get people to buy into that social contract?"

Personally, I think that by narrowing the argument down to a "when does life begin" misses part of the point. I'll think about it for a while and see where I'm feeling that this is wrong. I think it still has to do with "Whose liberty" are we defaulting to."

[miykael]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
I'm not backpedaling. This is exactly what I've been saying the entire time.

POOR COMMUNITIES TEND TO HAVE MORE CHURCHES.

POOR COMMUNITIES TEND TO HAVE EXTREMELY STRONG BELIEFS IN GOD.

That's a ONE way thing. You can't turn my words around and make me say "Anyone who believes in god is poor and uneducated"; I've never said that, nor do I believe it.

However, I do believe you'd find things quite interesting if you polled educated people and uneducated people on 'god'. The less intelligent crowd would be all over jebus.

- Ca$h

I would have to agree with you that you have been trying to state those two opinions above, all this time. It was I that thought you correlated the two the other way around (which even you know would be a poor call) and may have stirred some misunderstanding/miscommunication towards you. For that, I apologize if indeed the others were influenced by me. If not, then I had nothing to do with it. =)

Thanks,

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Timo:
Get yer own thread post-whore magnet.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Timo:
Get yer own thread post-whore magnet.

I'm a post-whore magnet? So I attract post-whores?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I'm a post-whore magnet? So I attract post-whores?

You know, you do look kinda purdy...

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by boots:
Hmm. sounds like an adoption of a lot of libertarian ideals mixed into a Republic...

I do agree that most of what gets legislated is crap. Good manners and simple respect for human life should cover most of it.

Unfortunately we don't (as a country) seem to have those two things. So we are back to "How do you get people to buy into that social contract?"

Personally, I think that by narrowing the argument down to a "when does life begin" misses part of the point. I'll think about it for a while and see where I'm feeling that this is wrong. I think it still has to do with "Whose liberty" are we defaulting to."

I guess I'm confused why you think something would have to change for this to be the case. Our government is already designed around these principles. Our constitution is the prototype for exactly these ideas.

Since then we've seen a lot of hijacking of the government to ride shotgun over some social agenda or another. Now the electorate is so alienated from the process that government is only accountable to a very small group of selective interests.

We no longer consider them representative. We regard them as sovereign. We don't have time or energy to participate in the process so we resign our interests to "what they think is best" and then we complain when it doesn't work out for us. Politicians are emboldened by lack of accountability to think that they should be deciding for us rather than on behalf of us. They tell us what to do, rather than us telling them.

It's people for the government, of the government and by the government. We serve it, rather than it serving us.

Only in that climate can the possibility that our mutual fears about Evangelicals or Secularists be played out. Otherwise, we'd simply agree to disagree on occassion and enjoy our Liberty.

But by design, everyting is in place for what I propose and endorse. We just have to get back to that.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You know, you do look kinda purdy...

PM me big boy, and I'll show you just HOW purdy.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
PM me big boy, and I'll show you just HOW purdy.

Can I see?

[putamare]

Churches in rich neighborhoods look like banks, silly. You probably haven't even noticed them.

Seriously though, I walk to work a meager distance of 5 streets up and 5 avenues across in midtown Manhattan and pass at least three churches (probably more & just haven't noticed). I doubt even an omnipotent supreme being could count the number of churches on this tiny island where there isn't even enough room for a Target store. Whatever your argument is, I think we can appreciate the fact that Manhattan can be held as a polar opposite to whatever pigeonhole you are cramming the South into, and therefore a prime counterexample to your silly claim.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
Can I see?

Only if you promise to first go through sexual re-orientation therapy. The electric shocks only sting a little.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
On one hand, the need for mutual understanding and finding a way of communicating with tolerance is very very needed and I appreciate the author's comments on that regard. Liberals are way too dismissive when they should be engaging.

On the other hand, I'm not sure it can really be reconciled. These world views are quite mutually exclusive once they get into politics. The American experiment in seperation of church/state is not doing so well these days, IMO. Bush might be a real high-water mark for a modern president in terms of mixing the two. Perhaps the greatest mistake of the Left is to underestimate just how sincere Bush is when it comes these matters. Like many other during the election, I thought it was mostly for show (like most "religious" politicians). We were wrong. He obviously has a very very very deeply rooted conviction that he's engaged in doing "the Lord's work" and he sees the intersection of Divine and National interests. I honestly think he believes that very sincerely.

If he were my neighbor, I wouldn't care too much. As president, it's really starting to scare the bejebus out of me.

In one of the religious flamefests, I posted a long peice about Religion as the ultimate conversation stopper and why there must be a private/public split to protect both individual religious freedom and secular democracy. I really believe that to be the case.

I'm starting to doubt, however, that enough of my fellow Americans feel this way to make it work here.

My thoughts, and fears, exactly.

I'm pessimistic about bridging the gulf between fundamentalism and secularism, for the same reasons that I've said that there is probably no way to govern the religious flame-fests that occur here. The difference in world-view is just too great, and you can't keep people from speaking their minds.

I have no problem with Dubya practicing the religion of his choice on his own time, but I'm fearful of the way that it appears to be influencing public policy. If his faith gives him personal satisfaction and strength, that's swell, but as someone else put it recently, Jesus is not supposed to have a cabinet seat.

I can only hope that, as is usually the case in this country, things will swing one way for a while, then the other. Meanwhile, thank God (yeah, I know - habit) for Thomas Jefferson and the establishment clause.

[benb]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
I've driven all the way to FL, and the further South you go, the more churches you see. You also see more and more poverty. Coincidence? I think not.

- Ca$h

There is a direct correlation between the amount of ice cream eaten and the chance of drowning. To put it simply, the more ice cream you eat, the more likely you are to drown. Coincidence? I think not.

But, does this mean eating ice cream causes drowning? When do people swim more? In the summer. When do people eat more ice cream? In the summer. So naturally, the correlation between eating ice cream and drowing will be strong. But that does not, in no way, mean that if you eat more ice cream than me, that you will be more likely to drown. Now, go apply this logical and statistical principal to you statement above.

I will do it for you. While it may be true that "the further South you go, the more churches you see. [And] you also see more and more poverty," it does not, in no way mean that the poverty is a direct cause of the churches, nor that the churches are a direct cause of poverty.

This is simple, fundamental logic.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by zigzag:

I have no problem with Dubya practicing the religion of his choice on his own time, but I'm fearful of the way that it appears to be influencing public policy. If his faith gives him personal satisfaction and strength, that's swell, but as someone else put it recently, Jesus is not supposed to have a cabinet seat.

Well put...My roommate (he attends Denton Bible Church, fundamentalist) and I had a similar debate when I was talking about separation of church and state being a core American value. He questioned the validity of that value if there was a christian president. Would that not be mixing church and state? I said no, as long as his crafting of public policy neither respects nor inhibits religion. Bush is crossing that line. We never changed eachother's mind. He thinks the world is around 12,000 years old so I don't try anymore.

Like BlackGriffen said...the pendulum will swing back. Just wait a few years.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by benb:
While it may be true that "the further South you go, the more churches you see. [And] you also see more and more poverty," it does not, in no way mean that the poverty is a direct cause of the churches, nor that the churches are a direct cause of poverty.

So then what is the third factor? In your relationship between ice cream and drowning, summertime was the underlying causal factor of both. What is the underlying causal factor between religion poverty? Education?

[benb]

Originally posted by BRussell:
So then what is the third factor? In your relationship between ice cream and drowning, summertime was the underlying causal factor of both. What is the underlying causal factor between religion poverty? Education?

Honestly, I have no idea. It could be many things. I gave it no thought, however. My point was simply that one cannot see two things that are correlated, negitively or positively, and assume that one is a direct cause for the other. I would assume, that with the complex issues surrounding demographics, that it is many, many different things causing this "phenomena". Age, education, income, regional history, family history, race, etc. all play their part. If I were to formulate a hypothesis, I wouldn't even know where to start.

But I think it is readily apparent that Ca$h neither cares, nor would be open to the fact that it could be other things. This has been made very apparent by his recent "polls".

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BRussell:
So then what is the third factor? In your relationship between ice cream and drowning, summertime was the underlying causal factor of both. What is the underlying causal factor between religion poverty? Education?

back up some. So far, this is just ca$h's perception, not necessarily valid data. Only once we have valid data can valid correlations be found, and as has been pointed out, correlations do not equal causal factors necessarily.

There are many potentional correlating factors (assuming cash was correct for some odd reason), not all of them obvious.
One could be the civil war legacy, of all things. Another could be racial or socioeconomic heritage and tradition. Another could be tendency of families to be larger, or smaller, or tendency of family members to live within smaller radii of each other, or larger. Or it could be a factor of how hiways in the south are more often running through more poverty stricken areas. Another factor could be the price of land influencing where churches are built. Another factor could be infrastructure and building visibility (as I mentioned previously). Another factor could be circumstantial denominational pairings and concentric demographics based on historic foundings of particular churches. Another factor could be education. Another factor could be that more affluent churches are more centrally located within communities and not necessarily on hiways (alluded to earlier in reverse). Another factor could be perceptive differences based on bigoted stereotypes. Another factor could be that in more poverty-stricken areas there isn't the capital to build larger more consolidated churches, so there are more in number but smaller in congregation....


I could go on and on and on....the point is, to this point we are just baldly taking cash's bigoted impressions as data and that isn't necessarily valid, and there are many many more factors to be considered even if his observations (and how much traveling has he done in the south, where, and on what dates) are accurate.

[benb]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
back up some. So far, this is just ca$h's perception, not necessarily valid data....to this point we are just baldly taking cash's bigoted impressions as data and that isn't necessarily valid...

Amen!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by putamare:
Churches in rich neighborhoods look like banks, silly. You probably haven't even noticed them.

Heh, sorry, but that has some truth to them.

Banks or country clubs.

[simonjames]

Would someone here explain to me what "speaking in tongues" means please? (see original post for context)

TIA

[Superchicken]

First I have to say Boots put the biggest smile on my face that I've had in a long time, and with the fact that one of my friends just attempted suicide last night, and the stress I have to say that really made me happy... dispite the fact that he spelt my name wrong, thanks man
I was worried I was comming off ignorant and uninformed and junk but you're one of the people here who tend to come off well thought out and stuff so it makes me less worry some about that Thanks a lot.

As to the discusstion about atheism and cash... you're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT CASH!
Yes I can invision the shock on many people's faces. But Jesus said it Himself. "It is easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven." Now the eye of a needle as I've been told was acctually the name of a spot that I can't remember if it was jsut difficult for the camels to enter or impossible, but it wasn't like a 1 mm hole type thing where you'd have to slaughter the camel to get it through.

Most people you see in church are white middle class people, least in my area, and we're Canadians and we're incredibly liberal up here though I'm not particularly. Why's this? Because we are the type of people who don't have emence amounts of pride in how we think of ourselves. Generally we veiw the sexy rich people as better, know we're not "all that", we're well off but far form THE BEST, and we live our lives in general not trying to get incredibly smart because we don't have major personal goals that say that we NEED to be able to fully comprehend the super string theory and stuff like that. Infact often the energy that would go toward that goes toward instead... God. Our striving tends to go toward God.
My friend Bryan is a perfect case. INCREDIBLY inteligent. The guy's just plain smart, way smarter than me. And he used to dable in quantum physics, he used to read every book on any subject, devised stratagies to beat friends at any game, all that stuff. I brought him to youth group and he started attending bible studies. Decided he wanted to make God important in his life. Now like daily he's reading his bibles... he's got multiple physical ones, he's downloaded an interliniar greek NT, he's even download the apocrapha haha, and he's like tottaly sold out his extra learning time for God.
Does God demand you to research him? No but that's how Bryan expresses his Love towards God. And I respect the crap outa him for it.
If you wanna see how smart a Christian is, you can often see it by talking to them, most Christians who REALLY wanna know God well, if you see them at a prayer meeting, they may be overwelmed in a discusstion about computers, but you get them talking about 1st Timothy, or 1st Corinthians, the Gosspel of John and so on, and they can just be quoting and paraphrasing every verse on most subjects and working out rational arguments for their stand on different issues.
And this? With the inteligence that rivals most people in this forum easily.
Not saying you guys arn't smart. I'm saying there's nothing about cash or location that determines your inteligence.

The bible's very clear if you're rich, God has to come before that. Most middle class Christians will give around 10% of their income as a tithe, yes people do give more than a 10 spot in the lil plate, it's just generally a cheque. And yet this is much harder for most people who have lots more cash that they could do with out. My parents tithe no matter what, they're not amazing Christians or anything like that, but they tithe because they know they should. And they know it furthers God's work.
Lots of rich people got rich cause they saved every dime and worked hard and they were working for them. Not all but most. Same with most people who are in educational institues, what's the likely hood that most proffs spend near as much time with a bible as they do with papers on their given feild of expertise? Unless they're theologians probably not many, and most wouldn't wanna try. Humans have to pick what they wanna spend their time on, those of us who want to follow God are less likely to be overly sucessful in life. Not because we don't work hard, but because our energies go else where.

That said, the poor are much more humble. The Christians in my area are middle class but we have a fairly small low class in Canada cause... they die in the cold really. We tend to be the most humble people around compared to the rest of the community at large. If you're humble you're more likely to recognize your need for God.
How many atheists feel they have a need for many things? When you live each day by God's grace like most people in third world countries understand they do. They really have no reason to say they can go it alone, they say YES THERE IS A GOOD GOD! Do they think of themselves as needy? They understand that that's just their life and that humans are needy. The western world has said... no we're not we can do it ourselves.
Why do you think the south has more churchs? The climates probably nicer. More poor people will go there. More people will be humble. More will rely on God for help.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by simonjames:
Would someone here explain to me what "speaking in tongues" means please? (see original post for context)

TIA

Haven't read any actual studies, but I'll try to use my admittedly limited knowledge of neurology to make a guess about what happens. The person enters a trance-like state (via self-hypnosis, externally aided hypnosis, and possibly with the aid of chemicals, depends on the person seaking to speak in tongues, really), or a "higher level of consciousness." It's possible, with repeated entry in to such a state, for neural signals to get crossed. I've literally read of accounts where people high on drugs have seen smells, heard color, etc. In such a state, it wouldn't be hard to imagine some unrelated neral signal being sent in to the language center, and in general mucking things up. Thus giving the person the ability to "speak" and "understand" nonsensical things for a short time. I'm probably largely wrong here, but I doubt that I'm far off in something going haywire in the language center (I know, that much should be obvious to someone using a neural model).

I'm sure Zim can give you the account of a faithful tongue speaker. IIRC, he claimed to be one in another thread.

Funny that modern day fundamentalist christians would turn to a pagan tool, though I have no ideal if the catholic church practiced this; aside from the Latin, I mean .

BlackGriffen

[Superchicken]

By the way, we have a church in our area with TONS of rich people... their pastor tells em God wants em to be rich, they gota give a lil something something to their church, which of course spends it on making their church better, to my knowlege they have no funds going out to missions... ironic cause our church gives ten percent of our funds to missions. They are told Jesus is a yes man (that was one of the guy's topics) that that Jesus just wants to pour down blessings on every person. They have a pretty high attendance. Largely because their ears are tickled. Am I recentful? Yes. Not becuase they're bigger. But because I've talked to their members, and the people who attend thier schools. They're all about looking big and flashy. The people that go to that church seem to be as excited about going to that church as they are about being God's child.. some I would question more. Most when asked if thtey're a Christian they say yeah I go to springs. Their youth group has 300 members and contains a moral lesson and some singing. Zat's it.
Our second biggest church... I went to a youth meeting of their's... they played some games with the crowd for a bit, then let them listen to a band play video games and fight in a blow up boxing ring and do lazer tag... oh they also had sumo wresteling.
You probably won't often see massive droves of people flocking to one church. Most churchs that I've liked what I heard at, were small unassuming churchs that taught their members to love one another, to love God, and to try and live by the bible... and zat's it.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Haven't read any actual studies, but I'll try to use my admittedly limited knowledge of neurology to make a guess about what happens. The person enters a trance-like state (via self-hypnosis, externally aided hypnosis, and possibly with the aid of chemicals, depends on the person seaking to speak in tongues, really), or a "higher level of consciousness." It's possible, with repeated entry in to such a state, for neural signals to get crossed. I've literally read of accounts where people high on drugs have seen smells, heard color, etc. In such a state, it wouldn't be hard to imagine some unrelated neral signal being sent in to the language center, and in general mucking things up. Thus giving the person the ability to "speak" and "understand" nonsensical things for a short time. I'm probably largely wrong here, but I doubt that I'm far off in something going haywire in the language center (I know, that much should be obvious to someone using a neural model).

I think it's less complicated than you're saying here. It's just people babbling. Anyone can do it - just go bedebedebedebede, then throw in a balabalabala and a shukashukashuka every now and then and you've got it. No trance, no neural signals getting crossed, no haywire Broca or Wernicke. Just babbling.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I think it's less complicated than you're saying here. It's just people babbling. Anyone can do it - just go bedebedebedebede, then throw in a balabalabala and a shukashukashuka every now and then and you've got it. No trance, no neural signals getting crossed, no haywire Broca or Wernicke. Just babbling.

You're probably right, but I was just trying to figure out a reason why the person would honestly think that what they were babbling was intelligible.

BG

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by simonjames:
Would someone here explain to me what "speaking in tongues" means please? (see original post for context)

TIA

Basically it's being "Drunk" in the spirit. You speak the language of the Holy Spirit. This is what is known as speaking in tongues. People also have seen visions/performed miracles under the influence of the Holy Spirit. This is the stuff that the worldly drugs we know try to copy cat. I have seen many people under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and they somewhat almost do act drunk. I have seen and heard people speak in tongues many different times. All the same language, a language none of them knew, but were speaking it fluently. It wasn't gibberish at all. And no, no chemicals were injested.

I remember when I was a kid, seeing a girl that could barely walk, smiling and crying out at the same time "Here he comes, here he comes again" She claims Jesus was coming to her in waves. Whatever that means, I myself have never experienced such a thing. I know many who have. It's not fake, or chemically induced, and it is very real.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Only if you promise to first go through sexual re-orientation therapy. The electric shocks only sting a little.

If I did that I don't think I would be intrested in seeing anymore now would I?

[Mastrap]

Interesting post. Thanks Timo.

I was shocked to recently find that in Germany newly elected elected officials actually have a choice between a secular or religious ceremony when being sworn in. I was even more shocked that the religious ceremony is still popular. Personally I cannot stress enough the importance of a separation of church and state.

[Mastrap]

Re: Speaking in tongues, this is a phenomena that appears in more than one religion, taking different guises.

To give an example, the oracles of the ancient Greek got themselves into a deep religious trance. The words they uttered where thought to be divine messages to be interpreted by priests to reveal divine will, not dissimilar to what Zim mentioned before. Similar expressions of religious ecstasy have been recorded as being performed by shamans and medicine men. The basic idea, being possessed by the gods, or in Christianity by the holy spirit, is always the same. It is seen as a direct line to <insert deity of your choice here>. In Buddhist tradition this is being replaced with the idea of attaining enlightenment, an experience of being one, with no desires to distract.

[Zimphire]

I wouldn't say they aer always the same, but each somewhat mimmick the other. This happens all the time in the spiritual world. It's almost a mocking type of thing.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Basically it's being "Drunk" in the spirit. You speak the language of the Holy Spirit. This is what is known as speaking in tongues. People also have seen visions/performed miracles under the influence of the Holy Spirit. This is the stuff that the worldly drugs we know try to copy cat. I have seen many people under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and they somewhat almost do act drunk. I have seen and heard people speak in tongues many different times. All the same language, a language none of them knew, but were speaking it fluently. It wasn't gibberish at all. And no, no chemicals were injested.

I remember when I was a kid, seeing a girl that could barely walk, smiling and crying out at the same time "Here he comes, here he comes again" She claims Jesus was coming to her in waves. Whatever that means, I myself have never experienced such a thing. I know many who have. It's not fake, or chemically induced, and it is very real.

Ok, this helps me narrow it down. For starters, it sounds like they're cranking out endorphines like mad. I wonder if it's a simple case of endorphine overload scrambling speech centers. The results would definitely sound like a language, as long as the scrmble effect wasn't fast over the time it takes to spit out a sentence or two. Especially if it hit the word association centers without hitting the areas for grammar and syntax. I don't know why it would be selective like that, though. Perhaps this is a case of the expectations of the subject coming in to play? Visions aren't hard to account for if the person enters a dream-like state. As for miracles, well, let's just say that the central nervous system has a lot of power over the body. I'll give you one minor for instance from a friend of mine. The guy is definitely not christian, but he practices meditation because his primary interest lies in the martial arts. He is also, judging from his accounts, able to enter trances. One such trance managed to change his eye color to a more deep and vibrant green (he had previously had hazel tinges in them, I verified this for myself). That was not his goal, of course, and I'm not going to describe the content of the trance (far too personal to him). I will say that he, and the content, were definitely, completely non-christian.

Oh, yes, one last tidbit. You do realize, don't you Zimphire, that narcotics do what they do because they mimic endorphines, right? Whether a person is high from narcotics, or because they've trained their brain to be able to over-produce endorphines should have little qualitative difference.

BlackGriffen

[Zimphire]

Or it could be they were under the influence of the Holy Spirit. My dad has spoke in tongues, I have witnessed it. He can't normally roll his tongue, but he could then. Couldn't afterword either. Everyone I have heard spoke the same language, and it was a coherent one. I don't think any drug would (unless it wasLSD or some sort) make you think Jesus was visiting you and speaking with you, I mean I could be wrong, my experimentation with drugs when I was younger wasn't that vast. I tried a lot of things, but not everything. I have seen many people under the influence of drugs, and it's not the same.

[Mastrap]

I've seen many people talk absolut horseshit when taking drugs. Loved up rave kids come to mind. Or bankers, coked out of their ears. Both not exactly riveting conversation partners. Although they tend to think differently.

No, I don't think that being under the influence of common street drugs could be compared to speaking in tongues during religious ecstasy. Having said that, drugs are being used by priests, shamans etc to achieve this state. The idea is to sever the ties that hold the spirit to the body, allowing communication with the divine.

[Superchicken]

Here is where I differ dramatically with Zimph. I don't do tounges, and I'm INCREDIBLY leery of anyone who says they do
Studies have proven it's not a language as is often taught but simply jiberish, I've heard the ocational person do it, generally it kinda sounds like klingon used to be haha... although more with a greek accent. Most of the people I've heard in tounges sound like they're saying latin or something... when reallythey're just going in funny talk.
Is it sinful? Nah. Benifitial? Perhaps it's a relase where you can just be passonate about God without words. Is it biblical? Well... kinda. There's corinthian tounges which is what's practiced today... or what we say is practiced today. I don't know of anyone knowing exactly what corinthian tounges sounds like. Which as i understand was a take off from some pagan ritual which Paul was probably like... oh well they think it's spiffy they love God let em do it. Pentacostal tounges however was you speak your native tounge, I hear my native tounge. You speak american, I speek Canadian, hence you prounce about propperly!
and spell it CHEQUE!
hehe or more extream you speak german I speak english, you speak french I hear hungarian.

I think often when people feel really mountain toppy they wanna say that God just DID what they did. Which isn't true. I talk when I pray lots, and when I feel really good roller blading and talking to God, sometimes I let God gimmie words to sing... I sound awful of course, but it's what I do for God. It's the same in these things, people take on an abnomal form that appeals to them and use it to worship God. It's not a sign of spiritual maturity or spirituallity. It's a sign of needyness for God to praise Himself through the person cause you're to stupid to do an adiquit job with words.

[simonjames]

hhmmm - "loved up rave kids" and "bankers with coke coming out of their ears" - can't get more stereotypical than that.





b-t-w - thanks everyone for explaining what talking in tongues is.

To summarise it seems that even though the bible says that god made man in his image he (as in god) can only directly communicate to a tiny number of people who are off their skulls in a nonesensical language that no one understands - a state that would generally have you locked away and medicated

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by simonjames:
hhmmm - "loved up rave kids" and "bankers with coke coming out of their ears" - can't get more stereotypical than that.

Don't you poke me with a stick.

I know these were/are stereotypes. They stick, though. My London home is 5 minutes walk from the Lloyds building, right in the city of London. Meaning most every Friday evening I have to make my way home through throngs of bankers, a fair number of which are charlied out of their minds. I drive a Land Rover, they've got a really flat bonnet. I've lost count on how many times I've noticed people crowding around the car. And they weren't admiring the paint-work. I used to habitually throw a bucket of water over the bonnet Saturday mornings because I had no intention of being nabbed by her Majesty's law enforcement officers for somebody else's ingestion of chemicals.

As far as rave kids are concerned: I work in entertainment. I used to run warehouse parties with a group of mates (unlicensed club nights for you non-Brits). I know there are other groups of people that take ecstasy. But damnit, loved up kids are still the majority. There's very little I don't know about drugs, their effects and who's likely to take them.


Peace

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
I've seen many people talk absolut horseshit when taking drugs. Loved up rave kids come to mind. Or bankers, coked out of their ears. Both not exactly riveting conversation partners. Although they tend to think differently.

I have too, and it's not the same thing.

No, I don't think that being under the influence of common street drugs could be compared to speaking in tongues during religious ecstasy. Having said that, drugs are being used by priests, shamans etc to achieve this state. The idea is to sever the ties that hold the spirit to the body, allowing communication with the divine.

I don't know many Christian priests using drugs to help them with the Holy Spirit. If they are, they wont find the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
Here is where I differ dramatically with Zimph. I don't do tounges, and I'm INCREDIBLY leery of anyone who says they do

[ Why? The Bible speaks of such things.

Studies have proven it's not a language as is often taught but simply jiberish,

Actually I have seen studies saying otherwise. If you'd point me to said studies, I would greatly appreciate it.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


I don't know many Christian priests using drugs to help them with the Holy Spirit.
[/B]

Apologies. I wasn't referring to Christian priests when I made my post.

[simonjames]

Well, given societies' attitude to drug use I wouldn't expect too many people - priests or otherwise - to stand in front of a group of people telling them all about the great vision they had whilst on acid.

"Talking in tongues" doesn't sound very christian to me - much more pagan but then it probably has a good theatrical effect and therefore adds to the overall church going experience.