Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Home > Forums > Teen Ink Forums > Philosophy and Thought > Angels & Miracles anyone?

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
Next thread » « Previous thread

Angels & Miracles anyone?

Dec. 21, 2016 at 2:21 pm

Yes....? That is what Pentecost was about. But I feel like there is a variance. I know some people when they "speak in tongues" have spoken in some other native language, my pastor had that situation visiting this African country, he was speaking in tongues and the people were amazed he was speaking their language. But I have also learned of the gift of tongues as being more of a spiritual kind of language, the utterings of the Spirit, but I have learned that that kind the devil cant understand. And what I speak I don't think is an actual language. So, I dont know one hundred percent, sorry. I hate sounding like I contradict myself but I will do some study and research and return with a better answer.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Dec. 21, 2016 at 2:28 pm

"If you really feel the need to disprove it"
 
Oh, I don't. That work has already been done for me many times over.
 
"its seems only logical to know the Bible inside and out before you simply reject it."
 
Not really. Do I need to know Scientology inside and out before I reject it? What about someone's convoluted conspiracy theory about world governments being ruled by reptilian aliens? Do I need to reach a scholarly level of knowledge before I reject that? I realize you're much fonder of the bible than of scientology or reptilian conspiracies, and will see it differently because of that, but in reality they are not fundamentally very different.
 
Truth is, it takes only one central fallacy to invalidate any argument. If the central point of an argument is refuted, the remaining details aren't worth much. Christianity happens to rest on a few central points that are very easy to refute.
 
"Please name for me a few of these inaccuracies."
 
infidels . org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions . html
 
It's a pretty long list.
 
"as you said, a good history textbook will be just as accurate"
 
That's not what I said. I said that any decent history textbook will be significantly more accurate. Even the best books contain error and imperfections. But a well-written history book will not, for example, completely fabricate entire eras of history with no supporting evidence (archeological or otherwise). Nor will it give accounts of human pre-history that fly in the face of basically all scientific evidence to date.
 
"There actually is a fair amount of evidence that a dramtic flood definitely could've happened."
 
Certainly not the biblical flood. A "dramatic flood" in real-world terms is less like sea levels rising above the Himalayas and more like a crazy monsoon season blasting open a new river delta somewhere. The Noah's Ark story is implausible in more ways than I care to count.
 
"The flood was a very long time ago. [...] And species evolve, locations make them evolve differently and genetic drift causes certain changes and all that stuff"
 
Just how long ago do you think the biblical flood happened? If it's long enough for that much speciation to have occured in the mean time, then it's long enough that most of the animals listed as being on the ark wouldn't have existed at the time - including humans.
 
"Thanks to the Church, we don't have to wonder what the Bible means when it says this or that."
 
Thanks to the Church, we don't have to think for ourselves about these things. We can just accept the views of an authority figure instead ;)
 
"If they don't perform good works, that means they don't really have faith."
 
If they put sugar in their porri- I mean, if they don't perform good works, then they're no true Scotsma- I mean, no true Christian. I wholeheartedly agree that it's definitionally impossible for a Christian to be a bad person. If they don't fit your standard of morality, it's obvious that they're just a fake Christian all along, not a real one!
 
--
 
Aside: about the speaking in tongues bit, historically speaking, if a Christian saw a Pagan doing the same thing, what do you think they'd assume?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Dec. 21, 2016 at 2:35 pm

@CNBono I think I might have been mixing up the speaking in tongues to the tongues of fire in Corinthians. There is an untranslatable utterance of the Spirit different from the gift of speaking in other languages. My apologies for the wrong terminology.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Dec. 21, 2016 at 2:43 pm

Also the flood was about 2,3-- BC. Two thousand three hundred forty something, I have to do more research. Also yes it is possible for a Christian to be a bad person. We are human and make mistakes. There are many times when I don't qualify as a "good person". Every Christian is a sinner. But a sinner who makes mistakes, asks for forgiveness and repents.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
NimWallaceThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Dec. 21, 2016 at 2:44 pm

Actually, @stuntdude, as I said before, I believe science and the Bible can co-exist, I've made that very clear, and my study of both is thorough. 

 As for your assumption that rejecting the idea of theories you haven't fully studied, would you give a bad review to a book you've never read? That's basically what you're doing. 

 If you're an atheist (and you clearly are) I'm not trying to put you down for that, it's fine, but so long as you are trying to put down Christians, I will remain in defense.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Dec. 21, 2016 at 2:45 pm

And if I saw a Pagan speaking in some unidentifiable language I would assume they were doing the same thing but to the opposite recipient.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Dec. 21, 2016 at 4:29 pm

@stuntddude: 
...We can just accept the views of an authority figure instead
I figured you'd say something like this. :) But really Catholics aren't just "accepting the views of an authority figure." If that were what we were doing, then the Church's teachings would probably have changed drastically over the course of history, teeter-tottering from doctrine to doctrine with every new pope. If you look at Church history, you can see that's not the case. The Church has changed, sure, but she hasn't taken back any of her earliest teachings or added anything that goes against her earliest teachings. Catholicism is like geometry -- if you start with a few well-defined truths, you can eventually build a pretty huge and complex set of beliefs.
 
Regarding a Christian being a bad person -- of course a professed Christian can be bad, and of course all Christians will make mistake. The question wasn't whether a Christian can sin, but whether faith or works are more necessary for salvation.
 
...it takes only one central fallacy to invalidate any argument.
 
Very true. Let's start at the beginning, then. What's the biggest central fallacy that you see in Christianity? (If it's the Bible contradicting itself, then I guess this thread can just continue on its current course.)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
FunneThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Dec. 21, 2016 at 4:31 pm

1. Honestly, I don't think stuntdude is putting people down. A debate has started and he's simply stating his opinions in this debate.
2. There is some evidence that supports christianity. There is also evidence to support other religions, and there is even evidence to support ghosts and aliens, things that many people don't believe in regardless of religion. Some of this is staged. Some of it is not. The point is that anything could be real at this point.
3. Things like miracles aren't exclusively Christian. Anyone can believe in miracles, regardless of religion.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Dec. 21, 2016 at 4:31 pm

Regarding speaking in tongues -- btw, congratulations, warriorwritergirl! :) That's exciting. -- My mom knows someone who can speak in tongues in the sense of muttering unintelligible words during prayer. I don't understand it, but I'd think any of the forms of speaking in tongues discussed on this thread have merit/value/are gifts the Holy Spirit gives certain people. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Dec. 21, 2016 at 6:14 pm

1. If the flood occurred in 2 or 3 BCE, then the New World had not yet been discovered (and there would be no way of getting those animals). Plus... we have records from 3,200 BCE in Sumer. Are there really no records of a 40-day flood in 2 or 3 BCE? When the human population did not experience a massive drop? The Roman Empire was in full swing at that point. I think we would have noticed. Even if you're talking 2,000 BCE (I'm not sure what you mean exactly by 2,3 --) then we still had writing and records. Between 3,000 and 2,000 BCE, we had Sumer, Egypt, India- by that point, we had the Pyramids. There were about 30 million people that just... disappeared? With no trace? No record? And a continuation of society? It doesn't make sense.
 
2. As for your assumption that rejecting the idea of theories you haven't fully studied, would you give a bad review to a book you've never read?
He's read parts of it, he said. Therefore he can. Also, on that note, by accepting the Christian God as the true one, that assumably means that you reject other religions. Have you fully studied them? The Qu'ran? The Torah? What about the Upanishads or Tripitakas? There are so many holy books and scripts that if you have to fully study all of them to reject them, you'd never get through them all. It's a poor argument, is what I'm saying. You don't need to know everything about a subject to counter it.
 
3. But really Catholics aren't just "accepting the views of an authority figure."
An authority figure could be represented by more than just a person. For instance, the Catholic Church could be considered one.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
NimWallaceThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Dec. 21, 2016 at 6:19 pm

Actually, I plan on reading the Quran and as many other holy books as possible before I get baptized. I don't "reject" other religions, I accept whatever you're belief is. I'm not trying to convert anyone here, just defending my arguement.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Dec. 21, 2016 at 8:06 pm

@wolves I meant 2,3forty something, I think the number is 2348 BC. I don't have all the answers to your questions right now but will continue to study and share what I learn. Also I plan to learn about other religions and read other religious texts, it is the most I can do before simply refuting them.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Dec. 21, 2016 at 8:07 pm

Btw my intention was not to have another debate thread...this debate will never end and I am wondering what comes out of these if opinions never change...

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
NimWallaceThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Dec. 21, 2016 at 8:11 pm

Yeah, sorry again..I'm backing out of this one, but my arguement stands.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Dec. 21, 2016 at 8:23 pm

I think the flood must have happened in prehistoric times, so long ago there's no way we would be able to remember it from a sheerly scientific or historic viewpoint. (Numbers -- i.e., of years/generations -- in Genesis may well be symbolic rather than literal.) The fact that a great flood is such a common theme in the mythologies of the world supports rather than refutes the idea that it was a historical event. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
TheNobleSavage replied...
Dec. 25, 2016 at 10:50 pm

As an atheist, I'd like to wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
 
Okay, that's it. You may continue debating.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Dec. 28, 2016 at 2:39 pm

Thanks, @TheNobleSavage! :) Merry Christmas, one and all!!

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback