Christians - A Penny For Your Thoughts.

[fuddam]

so is this a different god, or they are worshiping nothing?

they are not worshipping God. And there is only one God (who is both Father, Son & Holy Spirit)

simple example: Christianity says Christ is God; Islam says Christ was merely a prophet. Christianity says God has a son named Jesus; Islam says there is no son of God.

In this instance, only one can be true, Christianity or Islam. They are mutually exclusive. Of course some will say both are wrong (eg there is no God) but that is not the point here.

Christianity shares much common ground with other major religions (e.g. be good, don't murder etc) but it is the differences that matter, since they cannot all be true. Simple logic.

Worshipping nothing? Well, in order not to be divisive, let me just say the important point is that they are not worshipping the God of the Bible. They are worshipping someone / something else.

That's what is so bogus about the new agey stuff so common today, the idea that all roads lead to Rome. Utter garbage. THAT is choosing not to think, being afraid of conflict, pick n mix belief. From a sceptics POV, if there is a God, that means there is an absolute truth, in which case he must be consistent.

[fuddam]

I'm not sure speaking in tongues is a rational part of mainstream christianity - but let's ask the very model of a positive, helpful, harmless, good christian:

it was an essential part of the early church, it is mentioned repeatedly from Acts onwards, and as such is absolutely condoned by Christianity. Any Christian who discards it / dismisses it has a fundamental flaw in their scriptural understanding. Fundamental.

also, am not in favour of 'harmless' christianity - sounds neutered.

EDIT: seems we cross-posted. But, you haven't really been truthful with your answer...speaking in tongues is a scheduled part of saturday night, OK so noone will get crucified if they want to sit it out, but it is most certainly encouraged, isn't it?

that Saturday night is an invitation to people who have attended the course, and who feel they want to commit to Christ. It is not an obligation for anyone to attend. It is very much expected that anyone who attends that evening is coming along with a sincere interest in going further, and as such embraces being prayed for in that manner. There is complete disclosure beforehand, so anyone coming along can hardly claim they are being forcefed.

Note: that saturday night is an extra evening. Usually involves a weekend away.

[nichomach]

With respect, fuddam, I differ from your interpretation. The position of a follower of Islam is little different to that of a current follower of Judaism; they worship the same God, and the same God that we as Christians worship. However, we, as Christians accept Jesus as one aspect of the Trinity that is God; Jesus is God manifesting in the person of the Son of God. Islam and Judaism differ critically from Christianity in that neither Islamic nor Judaic doctrine agree with Christianity as to whether Jesus is an aspect of that Trinity that is God.

[kalniel]

OK...so speaking in tongues is definitely not part of schedule? Hhhmmmmmm?

Certainly not, in England at least

[JPreston]

Certainly not, in England at least

That's not what UK correspondents like (guardian columnist) Jon Ronson or (loyalist maniac) Ian Paisley tell me

Once I had a christian work for me who used to take tuesday or thursday (IIRC) evenings off to 'help out giving a course'. I thought it was like an adult education thing but he was always really evasive about it, finally admitting one day that it was a 'church sort of thing' and ultimately it turned out to be some alpha course connected thing. At the time, I thought it was basically a bit of a jesus-based sing-song with tambourines and orange squash and took the mick a lot about that*, but completely missed out on the speaking in tongues part because I didn't know about it at the time, for which I still kick myself. What a wasted opportunity...anyway, my point is he was a total dullard (seriously - he was) and not shy about his beliefs but he still had the sense not to mention the 'phenomenon' outside of his (presumably) small group.

My theory is that it is like a dirty suppressed secret amongst you - like fetishist behvaiour or something - for a discreet minority; it's great fun when there is a load of you in the same room all doing it together but not the kind of thing you talk about too much afterwards

So....any of you christians willing to publicly admit to having spoken in tongues (even once), and maybe writing a bit about it? fuddam (if you have)......?



*EDIT: before anyone wants to smite me with righteous jesus-fire for bullying christian subordinates I should add the disclaimer that we were also pretty good mates and generally had a laugh about lots of subjects - his religion was absolutely fair game, especially because he hid the whacky extremeness of it ...

[nichomach]

Firstly, Alpha Course != speaking in tongues. It's not really my sort of course for a variety of reasons, but the assumption that the one necessarily involves the other is flawed. Your colleague may well have been involved in an Alpha Course; the assumption that he also spoke in tongues is wholly without foundation. He may very well never have done it, nor even seen it.

Secondly, Paisley's comments are in general in line with scriptural teaching about tongues, which makes it abundantly clear that if one's genuinely given the gift of tongues (I never have been, and I've never seen it first hand), then there will ALSO be someone there given the gift of interpretation. I also am deeply suspicious of the so-called "Toronto Blessing" movement. It's scripturally pretty clear that the point of tongues is to benefit not only the person gifted with them, but the church/congregation as a whole.

Thirdly, I'm unsurprised that your colleague was reticent about the specifics of his church life, given that apparently to talk very much about it would apparently have violated good "sense". I have to say that if he had to bear the constant ridicule that you display here (and given that you were his boss, he didn't really have much option, did he?), then he's probably got a fair crack at canonisation. I'm a Christian, and my last deputy was an Atheist. If the subject came up at all, I made damned sure that he knew that while my beliefs might have been different, I absolutely respected his. Partly because of my own faith, and partly because I don't believe in bullying my subordinates.

[autopilot]

You know Jesus was said to be able to walk on water, right?


Well, what if he was on a treadmill?

[JPreston]

...I'm unsurprised that your colleague was reticent about the specifics of his church life, given that apparently to talk very much about it would apparently have violated good "sense".

There you go again, playing a pedantic game of 'philosophical tennis without a net', as Dan Dennett would say. I clearly said nothing more than the observation that speaking in tongues is a part of the alpha course that christians don't sing too loudly about, i.e. even those who are wacky enough to take part in such shenanigans are still rational enough to keep quiet about them. But you can go ahead and misinterpret me to your heart's content

Partly because of my own faith, and partly because I don't believe in bullying my subordinates.

PMSL, I knew you would be the one to pick up on that, so read my edit.

Then go find that Douglas Adams talk where he points out the idiocy of the fact that we are happy to argue endlessly about points of politics or economics, but the minute someone says something like "You know, I'm not allowed to touch a light switch on a Saturday" we are compelled to say "I respect that".

I've posted this above but here goes again (maybe point out the fallacy that you are so sure of this time): every person deserves a measure of respect, but every idea absolutely does not.

Respect is something that has to be earned, isn't it?

[JPreston]

You know Jesus was said to be able to walk on water, right?


Well, what if he was on a treadmill?

[nichomach]

There you go again, playing a pedantic game of 'philosophical tennis without a net', as Dan Dennett would say. I clearly said nothing more than the observation that speaking in tongues is a part of the alpha course that christians don't sing too loudly about, i.e. even those who are wacky enough to take part in such shenanigans are still rational enough to keep quiet about them. But you can go ahead and misinterpret me to your heart's content

And you're clearly incapable of understanding that the gift of tongues has absolutely nothing to do with the Alpha Course. Roll your eyes all you want; maybe when you've stabilised them you'll be able to understand plain English. And there's no "misinterpretation" involved. You're asserting that the gift of tongues is an intrinsic part of the Alpha Course. That is a factually incorrect statement. It is not. So exactly who's lacking a net?

PMSL, I knew you would be the one to pick up on that, so read my edit.

I did before I posted; you remind me of nothing so much as someone who'd have said (back in the days when the workplace was rather different) "Charlie and me get along fine, he even laughs at my Sambo jokes".

Then go find that Douglas Adams talk where he points....

It's a fallacy to suppose that it is possible to respect someone whilst publicly ridiculing the most important parts of their lives. You're an Atheist; you have your reasons for your belief or lack thereof. I respect your right to that belief/unbelief, though I believe it to be mistaken. I certainly don't ridicule or mock a person because they are an Atheist. You, on the other hand ridicule and mock people using the excuse of their faith.

[TeePee]

You seem to have missed the point.

Would you mock somone involved in an obscure cult? Would you mock scientologists with their DC-8 space planes?

If yes, then why do you think chrisitainity deserves any more respect?

If no, then why the hell not?!?!

[nichomach]

You seem to have missed the point.

What, that someone is making a load of insulting statements based on a factual error?

Would you mock somone involved in an obscure cult?

Mock them, no. Be concerned both for them and their effect
on others? Yes.

Would you mock scientologists with their DC-8 space planes?

See above answer; it's worth noting that Scientologists are actively encouraged to lie about their beliefs (something they have in common with certain sects of "Christians" - scripturally wrong, since it's bearing false witness) which appears to be one of the defining characteristics of a cult as opposed to a religion.

If yes, then why do you think chrisitainity deserves any more respect?

Well, the answer's no.

If no, then why the hell not?!?!

Because in many respects people like that are actually dangerous; conversely a lot are simply in need of help.

[TeePee]

Scientology and Christianity are equally valid.

Because in many respects people like that are actually dangerous; conversely a lot are simply in need of help.

The same could be said for many Christians.

[nichomach]

I'd argue that any belief/faith/cult that requires its followers to engage in dishonesty is inherently less valid than one which stresses honesty. Indeed, I'd also wonder whether an Atheist would regard an ethical framework (a purely secular one) that encouraged dishonesty as being as valid as one that encouraged honesty.

[TeePee]

The reality is that it makes little difference what the intent of the religion is. Both seek to indoctrinate the weak into their own belief system, and both require the blind belief of their followers of a system of 'facts'. The only difference is that christianity is more fragmented, and so many christians believe different things are true, as evidenced by this thread.

[nichomach]

Right; so you see no intrinsic difference between belief systems that encourage honesty, and those that do the opposite. You assert that anyone with faith is weak; I presume that by contrast you would argue that anyone without is strong. Well, I'm glad we differ on the former, and personal experience rather indicates to me that the latter's misguided as well.

You talk about respecting people, not ideas, but bluntly on the evidence of this thread, you do neither; a person merely has to state that they have faith, and they are immediately dismissed by your lights as weak, not deserving of respect.