Speaking Tongues

[palmas85]

There is no reason to think my friend lied to me, no reason to think I am lying here.

I wonder how many apply this same standard to other areas like the sun dancing at Fatima.

I don’t think anyone hear is calling you a liar personally. I think you are repeating something that you desperately want to believe, thats all.

The sun dancing at Fatima was witnessed by anywhere from 30-90,000 people and reported in secular newspapers of the day that had been ridiculing the apparitions as being false prior to that day. There is really no doubt that something happened that day that was visible only in that area. And what occurred was on such a massive scale that it deeply affected everyone present ,

That is a far far cry from the statement of a single unnamed source, which considering that everyone I have ever heard of who witnessed this event was a Priest, deeply involved in the Charismatic movement, I assume is the same person…

And, I have heard this story since the mid eighties.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Benefit of the doubt is usually given if:

1. There is a very good reason to believe the source (in this case sources), for example if their claims have been corroborated time and time again. You cannot demand benefit of the doubt when you make a hearsay claim out of the blue.
2. The issue is so minor that no one cares. In the case of whether certain Masses should be offered, which is liturgical practice, the issue is something that is quite significant.

Again, it is ridiculous argumentation to demand benefit of the doubt. Either just back off and say “okay, I was just putting that out there, believe or don’t” or offer proof. You can’t blame people for not assuming that you are correct. In fact, in light of the frightening difficulty you are having understanding this, I will probably be less likely to trust your rationality until you demonstrate otherwise.

So I (and my friend by extension) is not to be believed because I cannot ‘prove’ my statements but you are not saying I am a liar on this topic?

 

[Markstorm]

So I (and my friend by extension) is not to be believed because I cannot ‘prove’ my statements but you are not saying I am a liar on this topic?

Correct. There are two positions I can take here:

1. “E_M (you) is so trustworthy, knowledgeable, and wise that I will believe what you say, even without proof, simply by virtue of it coming out of your mouth. Likewise for E_M’s friend.”
2. “I do not know E_M to be extremely trustworthy, knowledgeable, and wise, so as a reasonable human being I am going to need proof instead of just believing everything they say.”

I have chosen the second option, and you’ll just have to forgive me. Note that you do not have to be a liar for me to choose the second option.

Seriously, isn’t this pretty easy to grasp? Typing something on an internet forum doesn’t mean everyone needs to believe you. Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Correct. There are two positions I can take here:

1. “E_M (you) is so trustworthy, knowledgeable, and wise that I will believe what you say, even without proof, simply by virtue of it coming out of your mouth. Likewise for E_M’s friend.”
2. “I do not know E_M to be extremely trustworthy, knowledgeable, and wise, so as a reasonable human being I am going to need proof instead of just believing everything they say.”

I have chosen the second option, and you’ll just have to forgive me. Note that you do not have to be a liar for me to choose the second option.

Seriously, isn’t this pretty easy to grasp? Typing something on an internet forum doesn’t mean everyone needs to believe you. Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?

I have no problems being believed or disbelieved because one does not know me.

I have a problem with being lumped in with liars pushing an agenda. While you have not directly done this you have danced around with this issue as your partner.

Is THAT so hard to grasp?

 

[Markstorm]

All I’ve said is that it is reasonable not to believe you. I have made no claim about whether you are a liar. That’s your imagination running wild on you.

In fact, earlier you said

I did not say you called me a liar.

And I explicitly said I was not calling you a liar. I don’t grasp why you incessantly put words in people’s mouths and harp on being called a liar instead of just arguing your point.

I’ve proven that it’s fine not to believe you. Anyone who reads these posts now knows not to be guilted into believing you. I’m done here, have fun whining at the next lucky person that you select for your accusations.

 

[old_school]

This is like a bad Jerry Springer thread. Everyone is " oh you dont konw me!" “Sit down!” “you aint ma moma!”. Gosh this is a forum people… chill. Anyway, speaking in tongues, if somone spoke in tongues wouldnt we not know it, because the apostles spoke in tongues and everyone understood, but I see them on TV and such and they say… “boba dopa zippy ya ya blah ma booba daba!” and everyone is in awe and like “its the HOLY GHOST!” But if that was tongues wouldnt I not konw casue I could understand… If I recall correctly the whole reason the apostles and maybe others later in history and now, could speak in tongues was so that everyone would understand… maybe its just me… Thanks.

 

[CrypticWritings]

Does the Roman CC speak in tongues at mass or anywhere else?

Speaking in “tounges” is not part of the Liturgy.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

This is like a bad Jerry Springer thread. Everyone is " oh you dont konw me!" “Sit down!” “you aint ma moma!”. Gosh this is a forum people… chill. Anyway, speaking in tongues, if somone spoke in tongues wouldnt we not know it, because the apostles spoke in tongues and everyone understood, but I see them on TV and such and they say… “boba dopa zippy ya ya blah ma booba daba!” and everyone is in awe and like “its the HOLY GHOST!” But if that was tongues wouldnt I not konw casue I could understand… If I recall correctly the whole reason the apostles and maybe others later in history and now, could speak in tongues was so that everyone would understand… maybe its just me… Thanks.

It is said that there are two forms of tongues - one for prophecy where someone would understand and another that seems to be gibberish but is a gift from the Holy Spirit strictly to praise God.

 

[palmas85]

It is said that there are two forms of tongues - one for prophecy where someone would understand and another that seems to be gibberish but is a gift from the Holy Spirit strictly to praise God.

Where does it say that and who says it?

 

[old_school]

you have to understand it to know about it… thats why we dont get it… makes about as much scense as the whole arguement… maybe ill visit a mega church and see for myself…

 

[Markstorm]

Where does it say that and who says it?

Well…
Eilish Maura:

A priest friend of mine taught me it is ok to doze off when spending time before the Tabernacle or at Eucharistic Adoration.

In many ways time spent is never a waste.

Eilish Maura:

JPII is said to have prayed in tongues (no not a known foreign language) and was supportive of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.

Eilish Maura:

I have a friend who is a priest, very much part of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, who vouches for this after having been to events with JPII, heard him pray.

When Eilish tells you that something “is said” without citing any sources, you can rest assured that it is authoritative and theologically sound. From what I gather by reading this member’s posts, you will have to apply this principle quite often.

 

[old_school]

Well…
When Eilish tells you that something “is said” without citing any sources, you can rest assured that it is authoritative and theologically sound. From what I gather by reading this member’s posts, you will have to apply this principle quite often.

hahahahahaha thats funny! So, so true. God Bless you!

 

[Eilish_Maura]

What’s the point of your comments? To prove that the CC has no members who speak in tongues, especially not our Pope?

Hate to say it man, but speaking in tongues is more common than you think and it probably would not have been ‘trumpeted’ like you say. It probably would have been a story told from eye witness to others, like Eilish has told us.

I have no reason to not believe it.

It sounds like you have waged a personal war on the Catholic Charismatic movement.

Actually some seem to have decided to wage a personal war on me.

Oh well.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by cascherman
What’s the point of your comments? To prove that the CC has no members who speak in tongues, especially not our Pope?

Hate to say it man, but speaking in tongues is more common than you think and it probably would not have been ‘trumpeted’ like you say. It probably would have been a story told from eye witness to others, like Eilish has told us.

I have no reason to not believe it.

It sounds like you have waged a personal war on the Catholic Charismatic movement.

Actually some seem to have decided to wage a personal war on me.

Oh well.

---

Debating the content of statements made — is not a personal war. Trying to climb out of hole one has jump into by saying it is “personal” does not help.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

---

Debating the content of statements made — is not a personal war. Trying to climb out of hole one has jump into by saying it is “personal” does not help.

Naw - plenty of the comments were personal - like painting me as a liar.

 

[James_2_24]

Sorry to say, but I have been reading E_M comments on this listing and I have to say that E_M seems to have some sort of complex – thinking that everyone is out to get him.

The arguments on the other side didn’t seem to be attacking at all but just stating that they couldn’t go off of hearsay…

Elish has been caught up on being worried about whether or not he was being taken for a liar.

And for the record – speaking in tongues is false – at least the way the Charismatic movement will have you believe.

Here is a good old This Rock article on it:
catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9804chap.asp

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Debating the content of statements made — is not a personal war. Trying to climb out of hole one has jump into by saying it is “personal” does not help.

Naw - plenty of the comments were personal - like painting me as a liar.

---

In these forums — in many instances --people are asked to provide proof to backup their statements. It is not “personal” --but a tool to differentiate between what is – from --what is not.

The following “nun” was pushing for the case of a “female” Pope. She supposedly had “witnesses” to prove such a Pope.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1457573#post1457573
Quote=Talitha
My witness? One of my Sisters, a professed Nun who is in Italy; her research checked and endorsed by our Abbess. Both reputable; both utterly trustworthy.

Quote=Talitha
Please, go to Rome, as others seeking truth about these matters have.
My witness in this was unimpeachable and saw the records.

Even Rome is capable of error from that historical perspective.

 

[palmas85]

Naw - plenty of the comments were personal - like painting me as a liar.

Then why do you keep ducking the questions posed to you and immediately assume a defensive posture?. Are you honestly surprised that some of us find your claims a bit hard to accept given the fact that you steadfastly refuse to say where things are said and done, and who says they are said or done or anything else for that matter. On this forum saying things like that really doesn’t cut it. Most of us here are at least partially educated and extremely interested in the faith so we actually take the time to check things out and have some knowledge of the things we speak about. When someone comes on here repeating a story thats been kicking around for over twenty years, in exactly the same fashion, well, its a bit hard to believe that this time its true when all the other manifestations were false…

Now if you want to feel sorry for yourself go right ahead. Thats al on you.

 

[James_2_24]

Naw - plenty of the comments were personal - like painting me as a liar.

Ummm… when was anyone saying you were a liar? Just cause you don’t believe someone doesn’t equal they are a liar.

There are many reasons for not believing someone. They could have gotten their facts wrong, there source may not be reliable, they may have made a statement in haste, etc, etc, etc.

Why do you think books and professional articles are expected to site their sources? Cause we would not believe them otherwise – or we’d have reason to question the authority of the statement.

Ever use wikipedia? Whenever someone types some sentence on there without citation – Wikipedia often warns the reader by saying [no citation] or [citation needed]. Is this to say that the writer of that sentence is going to turn around and say, “what are you trying to say??? i’m lying?? come on, you are attacking me!”

That would make the writer of such a statement look like they have a personal problem.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Ummm… when was anyone saying you were a liar? Just cause you don’t believe someone doesn’t equal they are a liar.

There are many reasons for not believing someone. They could have gotten their facts wrong, there source may not be reliable, they may have made a statement in haste, etc, etc, etc.

Why do you think books and professional articles are expected to site their sources? Cause we would not believe them otherwise – or we’d have reason to question the authority of the statement.

Ever use wikipedia? Whenever someone types some sentence on there without citation – Wikipedia often warns the reader by saying [no citation] or [citation needed]. Is this to say that the writer of that sentence is going to turn around and say, “what are you trying to say??? i’m lying?? come on, you are attacking me!”

That would make the writer of such a statement look like they have a personal problem.

One poster, outright put me in the same category as liars.

If I am not considered a liar then I should not be in that category should I?

Another side stepped the word but described that I spoke falsely.

Both actions are different than expressing disbelief in what I shared from my friend. One can not believe an account but leave it open that it may be the truth.