Raf

If you remember what the last countdowns were about (it's been more than 13 years, so I'm guessing most people are like, wha?), please don't spoil it. Our countdown starts at 41

This falls into the category of "been discussed ad nauseum." Many people have tried. No linguist who has ever studied SIT has actually identified a language produced. A number have concluded "this sounds like it might be..." but no follow up was ever done to nail it down. Important to note: they did not "study" it. They listened to a sample and expressed their initial thoughts. So "never" is accurate, but it doesn't quite go far enough for us doubters. That said (as I mentioned in another thread), you really have a serious burden of proof issue here that has to be addressed: Do I have to prove what you're producing is not a language, or do YOU have to prove it is? Technically, the answer is neither. You can be speaking in tongues and I have a trained linguist who carefully takes notes, studies your output for a year, can't find a language and, in the end, reaches the conclusion that he/she cannot say with any certainty that a language was produced. That's the problem on my side: I can NEVER prove to YOUR satisfaction that what YOU are producing is NOT a language. BUT!!!!!!!!! You can prove to my satisfaction that it is. Fine, we can't identify yours? We have 100,000 other people who have been through PFAL as of 1988. Surely ONE of them can produce an identifiable language in front of an objective linguist. Any takers? No? It only takes ONE PERSON producing ONE LANGUAGE to demonstrate that there is something supernatural taking place. ONE. Nope. Not one. No one's ever done it. In THAT sense, "never" is absolutely accurate.

"Thus, it's a belief that God does not exist. The Jesus aspect is a red herring of sorts." This is going to sound nitpicky, but you need to be more precise. Atheism is NOT the belief that God does not exist. It is the absence of the belief that he does. What's the difference? It has to do with where the burden of proof lies. In debate, the burden of proof typically lies with the person making the positive assertion. If you make an assertion, it is on you to prove that assertion is true. Atheists tend to argue that we are not making an assertion. Rather, we are denying yours. Atheism can only be disproved by proving the existence of God. One can never prove atheism is correct, but you can prove atheism is incorrect in a heartbeat by proving the existence of God. This is similar to our earlier debate and discussion about speaking in tongues. Remember how I was asked to prove everyone was faking it, and I admitted I couldn't? I shouldn't have to prove everyone is faking it, because I am not the one making a claim. I am rejecting a claim. If you want to prove me wrong, you have to prove you're producing a language. We don't have a word for people who don't believe in Bigfoot, Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster. No one demands such proof of them. No one says they have a belief that Bigfoot doesn't exist. No one suggests it's their job to prove their case. They're not making a case. They're rejecting some other schmoe's case. As for the founding fathers, it gets a little complicated. I think if you looked carefully at some of the significant ones, you would find beliefs that would be roundly criticized by modern Christians. Jefferson produced a Bible that stripped the life of Jesus of all miracles and claims of divinity (by which I am including references to being the "son of God"). Christians love citing his references to God, but they fail to recognize that his God and theirs have very little in common. In the Declaration of Independence, for example, Jefferson refers to man's "creator" and to "nature's God." "Nature's God" is not a Christian concept. The Bible never refers to Yahweh as "Nature's God." It is a deist idea. More accurately, it is the concept of "God" that transcends any one religion. The point of "nature's god" in deism is to take the concept of God out of the hands of members of a particular sect. George Washington was a lukewarm Christian at best. John Adams signed a treaty that specifically noted the USA was not founded on the Christian religion. Madison, Monroe, Franklin... These founders understood the significance of religion and spoke admiringly of faith, but they were not Christians by today's church definitions. They'd get chased out of the congregations of Falwell, Graham and others. Other founders were undoubtedly Christian by any reasonable definition of the word, and no one should be permitted to deny that.

John Travolta Hairspray Christopher Walken

Do atheists truly maintain that the 6.5 billion people today, and the nearly 100 billion people throughout the history of our species are completely wrong in their belief in a deity? I actually did answer this one on Quora, though I will answer it here differently. The fact that multiple people believe in a deity is not impressive unless all those people believe in the same deity, in my opinion. That fact that South American natives (Incas, Aztecs and Mayans) all had gods does not signify that their belief validates the existence of Yahweh, Allah or any of the Greek, Roman or Eastern gods. Now, if the Incas worshiped a God named "Llejova" whose only begotten son was executed on the other side of the earth for the sins of mankind, they might be onto something. That might actually be impressive. But the truth is, independent societies have never, ever managed to concoct the same gods with the same name and the same rules and restrictions along with the same philosophies for what happens in the afterlife and what criteria man must meet in order to be eternally rewarded. So? So, that shows that not only do atheists believe all these people throughout history have been wrong, but so does literally everyone else. Christians believe all Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Atheists are completely wrong in rejecting their central story. Jews believe the Christians and Muslims are wrong. And don't get me started on the various sects within Christianity that think all the other sects within Christianity have been wrong about Christianity! Numbers do not confirm truth.

If you click on the link, you'll see that most of the answers presume he meant the same thing I presumed he meant. Thus, I did him a favor by answering the question without the commas as well. Most people did not extend that courtesy. [Note: I actually did not answer on Quora because I found multiple adequate replies]

As a matter of grammar, you are mistaken. With a comma, you're saying everyone in the group has that characteristic. Take out the part that's offset by commas and you have not changed the substance of your statement. Without the commas, you're referring to a subset of the larger group. Take out the modifier and the sentence is saying something else entirely.

So I'm going into "Quora" and lifting questions so that this conversation can continue even though folks here are either reluctant or unwilling to ask certain questions. I'm cherry picking, obviously, but I do invite you to find and/or ask your own questions. How do atheists, who claim that Jesus never existed, explain the fact that hundreds of people have witnessed his resurrection and all the Apostles died for him? There's a real problem with the comma here. With the comma, the question implies atheists claim Jesus never existed. That's not true. Atheists, as a condition of atheism, could not care less whether Jesus actually existed as a historical figure. Most atheists, as far as I am aware, take it for granted that there was a historical Jesus but that he was not what the Bible claims him to be. Similarly, most Christians believe Mohammed existed but is not what the Q'uran claims him to be. This isn't rocket science. There are some atheists who hold that Jesus never actually existed, even as a historical person whose biography was exaggerated by later followers. Their case is stronger than you would think, but not as strong, I believe, as the case for an itinerant preacher whose execution gave way to legends that got WAY out of hand. Let's look at the second part of the question: "hundreds of people witnessed the resurrection." That's simply not true. Not by a longshot. It's a CLAIM, but the truth, even Biblically, is that the number was not that high. Paul makes a reference to hundreds of people seeing Jesus at once, but he does so decades after it happened and, conveniently, provides not one scrap of evidence about who those people are or how they could be contacted to verify the claim. This is not at all dissimilar to certain people who go on Twitter to declare "a lot of people are saying Obama is a Kenyan born Muslim." Um... Look, either name thenm or shut up. Paul didn't name them. He named a few people, but hundreds? Not even close. More significantly, the last part of the question states all the apostles died for Jesus. Not only is this untrue Biblically, it's a "legend" in every sense of the word. Biblically, you can make the case that James (son of Zebedee) was martyred. The Bible does not say why, other than that he was a follower of Jesus. Was he given a choice to renounce the resurrection and live? Book doesn't say. And that's crucial! If you were to tell me to renounce my father's name or die, I might renounce his name -- even though I know it to be true! The thought that a man in a position to know for a FACT whether the resurrection was a hoax chose to die rather than renounce the hoax would be quite convincing indeed. However, there is no Biblical or historical evidence that this ever happened. Ever. Not once. Not even James (who dies in Acts 12. Read it). The Bible does not record the death of Peter, and history's account is lacking in significant detail. Executed by Nero in 65 AD on an upside-down cross. Ok. That doesn't prove he was a witness to the resurrection. It actually does not established that Peter's execution actually happened. In fact, it does not establish that Jesus existed AT ALL. At most, if true, it establishes Peter existed, which is not in dispute. The Bible loses track of most of the apostles -- only John is believed to live late into life (unusually late for the time, but not impossibly). There is not one scintilla of evidence, Biblical or extrabiblical, that anyone was given the choice of renouncing the resurrection or suffering execution. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find reliable evidence that there even WERE 12 apostles who served with Jesus during an earthly ministry. Paul's reference to "the twelve" makes no such implication. Generally speaking, a claim does not need to be refuted until and unless SOME evidence is presented that it is in fact true. Anyone can claim anything. But if you've got no evidence to back it up, it's not on me to refute your claim. It's on you to prove it. To answer the question posed, there is no established "fact" for us to explain. Now, if you eliminate the first two commas from the question, you change it a little. Now the question is not directed at all atheists, but at a subset of atheists who believe Jesus never existed. Atheists who believe he did exist are, presumably, exempt from the question. But that makes no sense because the question applies to them even MORE if they think he did exist. Nonethless, the reply is the same: There is no evidence that the resurrected Jesus was seen by hundreds or that the apostles "died for him." Two apostles at most. Maybe three, if you include Paul.

God loves you. He needs you. He's relying on you to do his will and spread his word. He will never leave you. He will never forsake you. He is good. Always. He is love. He will back up his word. Don't be afraid. Do not doubt. He is stronger than those who would stand against him He is your Lord and Father. He will always love you with a deep and everlasting love. It is NOT HARD at all to rattle off an interpretation or prophecy, especially after you spend a few hours in a class telling you what it should and should not sound like! What? No "muck and mire"? Check! And suddenly No One utters those words ever. WOW! You made it up.

We did not discuss interpretation and prophecy as extensively, but the answer there is extraordinarily simple. In those so-called "manifestations," we relied on our own languages, so we can't just say "wow, how did I do that?" We did it very simply. "Extemporaneous speech" is when we are able to relate something that is unrehearsed. If you have a general idea what you are going to say but NOT a general idea of each word you are going to employ when you are going to say it, then you have engaged i extemporaneous speech. "Interpretation" and "prophecy" are, quite simply, examples of extemporaneous speech. You know ahead of time that you will speak words of edification, exhortation and comfort. You don't need to think it out ahead of time (you've likely heard dozens upon dozens of examples before you tried). You just need a general idea. Go. There is absolutely, positively nothing supernatural about this. "But I never made it up!" SURE you never made it up. "But how could I have known....?" You didn't. You made an educated guess based on available information which is, not surprisingly, quite extensive.

Agreed on all points.

gotta guess: When A Stranger Calls

Kate Capshaw Indiana Jones and the First Cash Grab We Want to Think Was Better than it Actually Was. Jonathan Ke Qan

Did not mean to imply otherwise. It should also be noted that I was a believer when I came to this conclusion, so abandoning Christianity is absolutely not necessary to reach the same conclusion I reached.

I'm just going to fall back on "we discussed this ad nauseum" and leave it at that. Feel free to DM me, WordWolf (for a believer who agreed with me) or Chockfull (for a believer who disagreed with me) if you'd like a recap. That goes for anyone reading.

I don't think one has to be a con man to have fooled himself into thinking he has spoken in tongues. To the contrary, I believe that every last one of us fooled ourselves into thinking we did it. It wasn't because we were liars or dishonest. It was because we: 1. genuinely wanted to do what we felt the Bible said was possible for us to do. 2. sincerely believed we were taught a method for doing it. 3. Basked in the mutual encouragement that congratulated each other for doing it once we got over hump of letting the sounds out. 4. Sincerely believed our teachers when they said not to believe that "Satanic" voice in the backs of our heads saying this was "just us." We talked ourselves into it. And we did it for SO MANY YEARS that to this day, some of us are unwilling to admit that we fooled ourselves as readily as we tried to fool each other. At no point do I believe this is a matter of malice. It was "wanna" beefed up by massive doses of "God said it, that settles it." But ask them what language they produced, and then sit back and wait for the excuses to fly.

But his books had a lot of pages with chapters and everything.

But he HAD to do that to protect the Christline! [WTF????]

After 30 years, you don't get to whine about spoiler alerts Bonfire of the Vanities Bruce Willis The Sixth Sense

I've read a lot of chapters in a lot of books. Some have more than 1,000 pages. Some have fewer. The fact that someone wrote a chapter in a book that documents a phenomenon he has identified is no guarantee that the phenomenon he describes is an accurate reflection of the truth. I'm not saying Bullinger is flat out wrong about the idiom of permission. He could be absolutely right. But peculiar how few others have made the same observation, independently coming to the same conclusion. And is it or is it not time we started asking some serious questions about the reliability of Bullinger as a scholar? Because the man was BATS. Too soon? He was nuts. I mean, flat-earth, Adam was created in 4004 B.C. cuckoo. I humbly submit that his opinions on tons of subjects are... what's the word... suspect.

1. "Sadly, I cannot get this man to accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God." Ok, let's start there. The Bible never calls itself the Word of God. That's part of the problem right there. The Bible speaks of the Word of God quite often, but it never has the self-awareness to declare itself to be that Word. Maybe, just maybe, you can be wrong about the Bible being the Word of God and still be a good Christian. 2. "I think he would like it to be..." Well, no one asked you what you think, did they? Maybe he has no preference one way or another and is just waiting for you to make a plausible case for your thesis. 3. "... but is overly obstinate and has an awful attitude towards God and his plan for man's redemption." A lot to unpack there. Has it occurred to you that maybe YOU're the one being "obstinate" with an "attitude" that won't budge no matter how many facts he presents to counter your preconceived notion that the Bible is the Word of God? Like, maybe YOU're the stubborn one, not him? Because he shows you the Bible, and you start making excuses. Oh, that's the Old Testament. God's different now. He's really kind and gentle. He did what he did before because he HAD to to fulfill the plan of redemption. Problem: The plan of redemption is only the plan of redemption because God wanted it that way. It didn't have to be. He could just accept an apology without shrugging his shoulders and saying oh well because someone found a particular fruit of a particular tree to yummy to pass up (He also could have put that tree ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET but instead put it right in front of two people who did not know good and evil; then said don't eat from that tree. Not exactly a strong case for omniscience. It's like I put a cookie on the table in front of my 7-year-old and said "Don't eat that," then walked out of the room. He's gonna eat the cookie. I'm not all knowing, and I know that). So your friend, I submit, is not stubborn. Rather, he's amused at the contortions you'll twist yourself into to deny what's obviously written. There IS not idiom of permission in the Bible. Bullinger, for what he's worth, appears to be the only one who makes an issue of it. It's hardly a scholarly consensus. The existence of other figures of speech does not verify the "idiom of permission" as something the Bible employs on a regular basis. It is, however, an extraordinarily convenient tool for believers to employ whenever their holy book shows God doing what no good God would ever do, even though the book is unambiguous about it being God who did it. But that's just the old testament. Unless, of course, you're holding back tithes from the apostles in Acts, which is New Testament. (Oh, but it doesn't say God did that. It was Satan -- even though the Bible doesn't say THAT either). The Bible is filled with examples of God saying he'll do something and then saying He did it. It doesn't say he allowed it to happen or he allowed Satan to do it. It says HE did it. Now, it COULD have said he allowed Satan to do it, very easily. Look at Job. Satan did those things. It says so. Yeah, he got God's permission, but it says that, clearly. There's no ambiguity, and there's no "this is how it works normally." A figure of speech is supposed to be a statement that is true in essence though not literally true. "It's raining cats and dogs" is a figure of speech. "This car can stop on a dime" is a figure of speech. A figure of speech is not supposed to be a way for you to get the Bible to say the opposite of what it clearly says just because what it clearly says is inconvenient for your theology. God ordered the execution of a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath. He didn't give man permission to kill the offending sabbath breaker. He gave man an order -- cast those stones! God didn't allow divorce. He prescribed it. He didn't allow Satan to kill all the firstborn of Egypt. He had it done. And he DID have a choice. When my kid offends me, I have a choice how to discipline him. You have no idea how many times my discipline has stopped short of killing him because he did his chores between sunset on Friday night and Saturday night! So here's a thought. Bear with me: Maybe your friend isn't the stubborn one in this equation. Maybe he's not the one being inflexible. Maybe, just maybe, he's given this far more thought than you have.

Twilight Breaking Boredom Robert Pattinson Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

Wrong movie. Bruce Willis voiced the Baby in Look Who's Talking. The Baby in Three Men and a Baby was a girl.

i don't suppose you guys are remotely interested in another perspective.

It is watchable. I actually enjoyed it very much. Skip the original movie though: it's a slog.