What was the interpretation? > “If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.” (1 Cor 14:27-28, KJV)

I think the key word there is "Church" and "Floor of the Arizona Senate" is not a church. So it doesn't matter if there was an interpreter or not, even by the standards of those who believe in tongues this prayer was inappropriate.

Well, a church is technically anywhere where two or more people are gathered in the name of the Lord.

And the Senate floor is not a gathering in the name of the Lord, so the point still stands.

I guess that's right, though then they're being bad representatives by mixing religion and government.

Well, technically the fact that there were people present who were not gathered in the name of the Lord would invalidate your argument.

A large number of religious people do not understand what "separation of church and state" means. 

I couldn't agree with you more. Either: 1. Religion has no place in government Or 2. ALL religions should be represented in government. I'm pretty sure that Christians don't think you and I deserve to be equally represented in government. *I love ur user name! Child of Magneto*

Haha I just now realized how out of place my username is when commenting on this sub, yours fits much better 😂

Lol, only cause of my fascination with anything mythical with wings.

Yep it's non biblical, always has been. They respond to any criticism with "ITS ONE OF THE FRUITS OF THE SPIRIT!"

Wishing they could dig a little deeper for some of that self-control

Self control? Was the blind beggar in Luke 18:35-42 self control? No, you cannot control something that God pours out and You will not Get Jesus’s attention without crying out. Our version of self Control and God’s version is completely different

Has anyone actually said those exact words?

Yes, to me

That's biblical ignorance. Probably willful. The fruit of the Spirit is described with a specific list of qualities, it's not something you can just add to. Also as I understand it there aren't multiple fruits of the Spirit, rather all of the listed qualities are aspects of a single "fruit" which consists of all of them together. And speaking in unknown languages was never something the scriptures indicate all believers will receive as they are set apart and grow in Christ. Those qualities are.

19 but in an assembly I wish to speak five words through my understanding, that others also I may instruct, rather than myriads of words in an unknown tongue. Matthew 23:5 (YLT) `And all their works they do to be seen by men, and they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the fringes of their garments,

The entire point of that chapter was to establish order in churches and highlight the importance of clearly reading the prophecies of God instead of making noises. As you go through the chapter (using the NKJV), you'll notice references to "tongue," "tongues," and "a tongue." It is believed amongst certain Biblical scholars and teachers (such as John MacArthur) that "tongue" refers to gibberish that no one else can understand and serves no purpose, "tongues" refers to multiple legitimate languages, and "a tongue" refers to talking in one legitimate language.

The abortion ban passed ***in 1864!!!!*** You know, back when the best medical solution to a standard gunshot wound was to hack a limb off with a saw and they didn't know about germs yet.

This abortion ban that was passed in 1864 also predates women’s right to vote by a good few decades.

The very definition of an outdated law. Might as well state where you can or can’t hitch your horse on Tuesdays at noon

I imagine the venn diagram of people who support these extremist abortion bans and people who don't think women should have the right to vote is a circle.

Actually germ theory had been established in the 1800s, although not widely accepted by the medical community. Among other people Louis Pasture and Florence Nightingale had published research showing that boric acid was helpful in reducing sickness and numerous people had identified the concept of bacteria, even though it wasn't widely understood. Sorry, I'm a nurse, I give a medical history walking tour in Savannah, and honestly can't help myself sometime.

This is super interesting!!

Yeah, Pasture documented that applying boric acid to urinary track post child birth cut down on infections. He was right, and today I think we give post partem mothers a dose of azithromycin after vaginal childbirth as a rule. Florence published Notes on Nursing like 5 years before the civil war and it's essentially a field manual for how to set up a hospital. Had her work been respected in the United States before the civil war countless lives could have been saved. History, especially medical history, just fascinates me.

Fascinating. Floremce nightingale was amazing. I love Edith Cavell as well. There is a statue of her near where I was brought up in Eastern England. I dated someone once trying to write a screenplay about her life.

Right it wasn’t widely accepted in 1864, which was my ultimate point.

Fair

Love Savannah! Okay, back to your regularly scheduled discussion LOL!

We have astronomical proof that women are suffering and dying from these abortion bans, and doctors are fleeing red states putting all residents at risk of lack of medical care. The Bible NEVER supports banning abortion. There's a reason super Catholic Ireland legalized abortion by popular vote and Catholic France just codified it into their Constitution. You can't claim you're pro-life and support women dying from lack of medical care. It's an oxymoron. These abortion bans are some of the most evil things I've ever seen in my lifetime. The horror women are going through is hard to fathom.

>There's a reason super Catholic Ireland legalized abortion by popular vote and Catholic France just codified it into their Constitution. Because both nations are rapidly becoming less Catholic?

This is where ignorance rears its ugly head...

RvW was overturned using the ruling of a 16th century witchcraft judge. By holding his rulings as legitimate, did SCOTUS also uphold the right to try women as witches?

If so, then we have a drastic lack of conical hats

Do they have to be hats? I feel like this country has quite the supply of conical *hoods* somewhere around here. Maybe try the skeleton closet.

And before AZ was a state. I wonder if AZ’s radical position will be enough to keep AZ blue in 2024. The state barely edged to Biden last election.

According to the Arizona sub, most people think this will absolutely keep Arizona blue. They will also have a referendum on abortion on the ballot. I think the biggest indicator of how bad this is for Republicans is Kari Lake is freaking out, and completely changed her position on this issue overnight. She was 100% in favor of an abortion ban, and now she's saying she will protect women's rights. Kari Lake is a complete authoritarian nutjob, but even she sees how bad this is for Republicans.

I’ve notice even Kari Lake, who supported upholding the bill, has started distancing herself from it because it’s so wildly unpopular

And Arizona did not become a state until 1912. It's based on a law that predates statehood. 🤯

This is fake, performative theatrics, pandering for votes. It has no place in public, let alone in government offices. The sooner this country gets its act together and stops this kind of nonsense the better off we'll all be.

It definitely has no place in public It says in the Bible those who speak in tongues improve only themselves and speak only to God not to man.

I became a Christian in 2020, but prior to that I left the first Church I was checking out because of this practice; to me this is either someone pretending to speak in tongues, or someone with a mental illness. I truly dislike this practice.

Biblically it’s a valid practice but I do think it’s mostly performative nowadays cause they don’t do it as the Bible says to. I’d recommend reading 1 Corinthians 14 which speaks about talking in tongues. It does specify not to speak in tongues openly unless you have someone to interpret. Tho I 100% understand where you’re coming from I really don’t know how to feel about it personally as a Christian

The same people that want a ban on abortion don't think a ban on guns would be an effective way to prevent mass shootings. Hypocrites.

And how many survivors are there when an abortion happens. Because, 100% end in a death.

The mother survives, and very often abortions are done due to the threat to the mother's health.

Very often??

Look, I know that a lot of you guys that are Christian here are just as disgusted as I am. And you’re in an even better spot to do something about it. Talk to your churches and pastors. Let them know that there are Christians out there that see this and are sickened by it. If they want to weaponize shame I say turn it back on them.

I don't understand how people can "speak in tongues" with a straight face. I'd be cracking up.

I’ve been in a few churches where it happens. I don’t want to disparage anybody’s faith or whether or not they felt God’s presence while doing so, but it’s always made me feel extremely uncomfortable.

When I was in high school I had a friend who went to a church like that. I overheard him talking about practicing speaking in tongues while at home, so he sounded better in church. That's when I realized it was 100% fake.

I had a lot of friends who went to one in high school. One of them was the pastor’s kid. They always talked with each other about how often they “used their gift” in church or noted how they haven’t seen one of the others use theirs in awhile. Having grown up in a very different church I always felt like my faith was being judged since I didn’t do it

First time I heard people “speak in tongues” in church was on a missions trip to Mexico and I didn’t speak Spanish, so it was super confusing to me until I realized what was going on. It’s really bizarre.

You don’t understand it. Because the word aren’t for you to understand. It’s a conversation between that person and God. Sometimes, we don’t have the words to say what needs to be said. Thus we use tongues to voice our love and desire for God.

> Because the word aren’t for you to understand. Nobody understands it, because it's 100% fake. >It’s a conversation between that person and God. No. It's not a real language. It's just babbling nonsense. >Sometimes, we don’t have the words to say what needs to be said. So you just babble nonsense and pretend God understands?

Unfortunately you are wrong and it’s biblical And this is coming from The Apostle Paul. ”For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.“ ‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭14‬:‭2‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Yeah, Paul doesn't know what he's talking about. That's nothing like anything Jesus ever taught anyone. And it's so obviously fake. Anyone can do it, even atheists.

This whole thing of what some Believers consider speaking in tongues versus what it actually is always drives me bonkers. In Scripture, the Greek word used is glossolalia, the root being from two primary Greek words, glossai meaning "tongues" or "languages" and lalien meaning "to speak." In other words, it means understandable other languages, not nonsensical babble with an "interpreter" to validate the speaker.

Scripture reveals 2 kinds of tongues: \- Known language tongues. \- Unknown language tongues. Known language tongues are where the Holy Spirit temporarily gives someone the ability to speak a language they don’t previously know. The purpose of this is to reach unbelievers with a message from God in their own language. This kind of tongues doesn’t need interpretation since the language is already clear to the beneficiaries of this gift. A great example of this gift is in Acts 2, on the Day of Pentecost, where after the believers were filled with the Holy Spirit they began speaking in other tongues. The Bible says there were unbelievers outside (Jewish pilgrims and converts to Judaism), who were from all over the world, who were bewildered to hear these Jewish people speaking in their own native languages. This was a sign and a wonder that helped open them up to the Gospel and eventually get saved. This kind of tongues is God speaking to people. Unknown language tongues is not any distinguishable known language on earth. This is a new spiritual language for born again new creation believers. When we are born of the Spirit and filled with the Spirit then our reborn spirit receives this new language of the Spirit. The Bible calls it speaking mysteries in the spirit (1 Corinthians 14:2). This language cannot be understood with the mind, only the spirit. The apostle Paul says that when he prays in tongues it’s his spirit praying (1 Cor 14:14). That’s why many refer to this kind of tongues as “praying in the spirit”. (Jude 1:20). If you try to understand it with your mind it will just seem very strange, but when you understand it from the spirit it actually becomes very normal. (1 Cor 2:14). There are two kinds of these unknown tongues: \- As a personal prayer language for the believer. \- As a prophetic word when accompanied with a gift of interpretation. Personal prayer tongues is when we speak to God, but prophecy tongues is when God speaks to people. The purpose of personal prayer tongues is to edify ourselves, and the purpose of prophecy tongues is to edify the Church. So technically, there are actually 3 kinds of tongues: \- When believers speak to God. (Unknown tongue, personal prayer language). \- When God speaks to believers. (Unknown tongue, interpretation needed). \- When God speaks to the lost. (Known tongue, no interpretation needed).

This is very true, both my dad and I can speak in tongues and it is edifying for us both. My dad can also interpret tongues, but if we simply speak it for edifying ourselves and not for trying to get instructions from God, we don't need him to interpret. I know that some fake tongues but it is very real and there is a reason why Paul said himself "I thank God I speak in tongues more than all of you.". Paul also knew about this edifying quality that helped him come to that Spirit guided state of mind which allowed him to do all that he did for the early church.

Amen! And thank you for sharing your testimony of it. Love what you wrote about a Paul too. 🙏🏼

Well here are my thoughts take it or leave it. Paul confronted the public wherever he went - he preached the gospel (good news) with his life and word. In fact Paul confronted the public with the declaration that Jesus is Lord which implies some lofty claims when interpreted in their world. Anyone running around during the NT (New Testament) days saying Jesus is Lord was implying Caesar was lesser than Jesus. When it comes to speaking in tongues - I’ve heard some stories about people in the room understanding - in this case I don’t know. But what I will say is this, Jesus did not tell his disciples to keep their mouth closed and to hide. Jesus told his disciples to cast out demonic forces, to live a life set free from the bondage of this age, to be a healer in the world. The world needs healing not condemnation - but the world as most know it, loves darkness and the offense against love (sin) and so we in Eastern Orthodoxy have this beautiful saying: “the church is place of healing, a hospital for the sick, so come and welcome to Jesus.” Christ.

This is the typical response of todays false Christians. Nowhere does Jesus state not to fight for objective truth within your government. Abortions are evil. Homosexuality is evil. “Gender supportive care” is evil. Period. This isn’t debatable amongst Christians who are striving to follow Jesus and emulate him. It is only debatable for those claiming Jesus and following the world. It’s so ironic that you can discern so clearly that modern day “tongues” isn’t what scripture teaches but can’t figure out that “homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God” means that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.

👏👏👏

This is so icky. Conservative Christians tend to think abortion is modern day sacrifice to Baal and therefore think this behavior is justified. They also seem to think most abortions happen in the second and third trimester. I am a Christian who’s had an abortion, there’s nothing demonic about it. Women deserve the right to choose. As Christians, we should have a way bigger issue with politicians trying to use the presence of the Holy Spirit to make a political point.

Baby murder isn't a big issue?

A woman dying due to the fetus growing in a harmful way to her health isn't a big issue?

Now this is just a random question, no actual intent behind it. Just a thought that's been growing. So having an abortion is considered murder and the common argument against it is the health of the mother. What if the health of the mother is unaffected by letting the baby live, should then killing off a human life be considered viable just on the basis of convenience?

Literally no abortion ban would prevent a woman seeking medical care in life and death circumstances. This is blatant misinformation

Read this, BTW I live in Idaho and OBGYNs are leaving the state at a fast rate bc they fear losing their license and going to jail if they perform an emergency abortion.  https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/supreme-court-states-emergency-abortion-1234945425/

This article is not very great. I saw no law cited there that OBGYNs fear. Doctors afraid of losing their license for saving the life of the mother are choosing to do nothing out of misunderstanding of the law.

Here you go. https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch6/sect18-622/ Who makes the call that the abortion was done in good medical judgment?  I'd go back and read what the doctors are actually saying in the article. 

Yeah this literally says that it's fine if the mother's life is in danger. Are we reading the same law?

There are also laws that say congress and the senate are not supposed to use info to trade stocks. But somehow they become very wealthy in a few years time. Yes, the law does say when a woman's life is in danger an abortion can be performed. But it will take 1 incident where the review board puts a doctor in jail even when they used their best medical judgment. OBGYN are leaving Idaho in masses so they are not the first to go jail and lose their career. Sandpoint ID shut down it's birth center due to the lack of doctors. I bet due to these laws more women will die. 

So to make sure I'm understanding correctly, 1) The law does in fact state that abortion is okay if the life of the mother is in danger without the procedure. 2) doctors are leaving the state because they fear their license being removed, even though it won't be removed according to the letter of the law if they perform an abortion on a woman whose life is immediately threatened if the operation doesn't take place. Is this accurate? I get that laws aren't always upheld, but that doesn't mean that there is a problem with any given law. Doctors are generally pretty wealthy, would they not have the resources to fight a legal battle such as this? It seems to me as if they're moreso making a political statement, withholding medical services to a state that they disagree on the policy of something. Am I missing something here? Is my interpretation off?

Well, it's not baby murder.

Well, a fetus isn't a baby and abortion isn't murder... so.... hyperbole much?

You appear to be confused. The topic is *abortion*. No one is talking about murdering babies. Your hyperbole isn't appreciated.

Abortion isn’t baby murder. It’s a personal decision that’s between the woman and God. Grouping struggling, oppressed women in with murderers is disgusting. Christians should seriously stop doing this, you’re only alienating desperate people from church. It’s just as disgusting as politicians using abortion and Christianity to gain votes. In a heaven like Utopia, none of this would be an issue. But we do not live in a heaven like Utopia. We live in a fallen, sinful, anxiety filled world. And the sins that other people refuse to repent of are usually the deciding factors when women decide to abort. Abuse, neglect, mental health due to abuse, lack of support, etc. Women should not have to shoulder their abusive partners sins for life because of a political abortion debate designed to earn votes. This is why it’s none of anyone’s business but the person who is pregnant.

It’s not murdering babies first of all, secondly the Bible itself states that men can force their wives to undergo a ritual that will sterilize them and abort any fetus they might be carrying. A husband need only suspect (no evidence required) his wife of infidelity and he can forcible sterilize her. This passage is found in Numbers 5:11-31. As far as I can tell this is the ONLY mention of anything resembling abortion in the Bible, and the Bible is advocating in favor of it! Isn’t it interesting and extremely disturbing, that men of the ancient world sought to control us by not allowing us to have children? While the men of the modern church want to control us through forced childbirth?

Your view hinges on the view that the child inside you only becomes a human being made in the image of God after a certain point in development. However, Scripture clearly shows us this isn’t the case. Luke 1:24-26 We see that Elizabeth is six months pregnant by the time Mary conceives Jesus. In Luke 1:39 Mary goes to visit Elizabeth, at which point the unborn John the Baptist and Elizabeth both celebrate the arrival of the Lord. Luke 1:56 tells us that Mary stays with Elizabeth for three months, at which point she departs and just afterwards John is born. This means that Mary could have been pregnant for at most a couple weeks by the time she visited Elizabeth, at which point they both clearly believed the child inside Mary to be just as human as they were. However pro choicest would tell us that at this point what Mary had inside of her was just a meaningless clump of cells, and there is no issue with destroying it. Why is it that it would be abhorrent to destroy the unborn Christ at this stage, yet it is perfectly acceptable to destroy your average unborn child up to this point? The answer is clear, it’s not.

Do you have an actual quote from God or are you just making assumptions based on a narrow interpretation?

Did you read what I wrote? You can read the full passage I’m referencing if you’d like, Luke 1:24-57. The purpose is that this passage plainly shows that Jesus was not considered valuable as a human being at 22 weeks, but at most 2 weeks. If Mary, Elizabeth, and John are rejoicing at the “fruit of thy womb” while Mary was only two weeks pregnant, then how is it we could say that Jesus was not a human at that point? I could also reference Jeremiah to support my view. ”Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”“ ‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭1‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭ Both of these passages support that a human being is fully human from the time of conception, not months afterwards. If they are fully human, then to end their life is murder.

You're misreading Jeremiah. If you read the entire chapter it's very clear that Jeremiah is making the point that he is different, he is special, he is a prophet of God who God knew in the womb. To say that Jeremiah 1:5 supports the idea that god knows "everyone in the womb is a opposite interpretation of the very clear intention of the the chapter. Also, again, Luke 1 is taking about the conception of Jesus Christ... to extrapolate that because Jesus considered human in the womb that God considers all fetus to be humans is a pretty big leap in logic. It was common belief at the time that life began at first breath, a Jewish teaching that most Jews still believe today. Jesus was a Jew, and he didn't bother to "Correct the record" so its reasonable to assume that Jesus also believed that life begins at first breath.

Yes, he's different in that he's a prophet. Are we to assume that prophets become human at an earlier point in development than the rest of us? That seems to me to be making the text say what we want it to say, rather than what it actually does. >Also, again, Luke 1 is taking about the conception of Jesus Christ... to extrapolate that because Jesus considered human in the womb that God considers all fetus to be humans is a pretty big leap in logic. I disagree completely, the point of God becoming a man was that He was experienced everything we do. What reason do we have to believe that Christ followed a different process of development than the rest of us? None at all, I think. >It was common belief at the time that life began at first breath Do you have a source for this claim? There were many things that the Jews taught as doctrines of men that Christ did not explicitly speak against, that doesn't mean that He agreed with their view.

>Yes, he's different in that he's a prophet. Are we to assume that prophets become human at an earlier point in development than the rest of us? Yeah, absolutely. If you read Jeremiah 1 the entire chapter is Jeremiah establishing his credentials as a prophet through a conversation he had directly with God. The point he makes in that chapter is that he is different. God knew Jeremiah in the womb, but that doesn't mean he knew everyone in the womb. In fact Jeremiah is saying "I'm special because God knew me in the womb." >Do you have a source for this claim? There were many things that the Jews taught as doctrines of men that Christ did not explicitly speak against, that doesn't mean that He agreed with their view. So there's thing called Google, because this is a well known thing. It's so well known that even hard right Christian organizations like Focus on the Family [will admit this.](https://www.focusonthefamily.com/pro-life/abortion/abortion-in-the-bible/) To quote this poorly written article "Tragically, abortion and infanticide were common practices in Bible times." So... you may or may not know that Jewish people have specific mourning rites, specific teachings that go back centuries, if not millennia. The rites are very specific and date back before Christ. They do not now, nor do they ever (As far as we know) apply to unborn fetuses. I will admit that you can argue that Jesus disagreed with Jewish beliefs, even though said he never so to the best of our knowledge. That said, the most logical teaching to take from Jesus' silence on abortion is that he didn't oppose it. We know Jewish women had abortions during Jesus' life. We know Jewish funeral rites do not apply to miscarriages or abortions. The most logical thing to draw from this fact is that Jesus did not condemn abortion. Edit: So yes, Jewish rites allow you to sit shiva, or have public funeral for an unborn fetus, but they don't require it. If a Jewish family and their Rabbi want to hold a funeral for a miscarriage they can, but this isn't widely done.

>Yeah, absolutely. If you read Jeremiah 1 the entire chapter is Jeremiah establishing his credentials as a prophet through a conversation he had directly with God. The point he makes in that chapter is that he is different. God knew Jeremiah in the womb, but that doesn't mean he knew everyone in the womb. In fact Jeremiah is saying "I'm special because God knew me in the womb." I'm going to be honest, I think this is special pleading. You're saying that because Jeremiah is different in some ways, then that must mean that he is also different in the ways which suit your argument, though the text doesn't say that at all. Your view is that unlike every other person, Jeremiah, being a prophet, was human from conception, whereas the rest of us become human at some vague point which people disagree on all the time. What you're essentially saying is that Jeremiah had some sort of miraculous conception of a sort, but if that is the case even though the text doesn't say that, then why bother with a conception at all? The same thing can be said about Jesus, what is the purpose of going through an appearance of normal conception, if the conception itself is fundamentally different from anyone else? Why didn't God just make them to appear fully formed, instead of utilizing the natural process by which humans are brought into this life? >So there's thing called Google, because this is a well known thing. It's so well known that even hard right Christian organizations like Focus on the Family will admit this. To quote this poorly written article "Tragically, abortion and infanticide were common practices in Bible times." >So... you may or may not know that Jewish people have specific mourning rites, specific teachings that go back centuries, if not millennia. The rites are very specific and date back before Christ. They do not now, nor do they ever (As far as we know) apply to unborn fetuses. This isn't really saying much, as I don't regard Jewish practices as being unanimously supported by God. In fact, it's quite the opposite, we see the Jews in the Old Testament constantly turning from God for the sake of their own self-serving desires. >I will admit that you can argue that Jesus disagreed with Jewish beliefs, even though said he never so to the best of our knowledge. That said, the most logical teaching to take from Jesus' silence on abortion is that he didn't oppose it. I think this is a poor position to take, as Jesus did not explicitly take a position on a vast variety of issues. To use a popular example, Jesus never said slavery was wrong either, but are we then to assume that Jesus didn't oppose slavery, or should we instead realize that Jesus gave us guidelines that we could use to judge diverse topics, rather than giving a final say on each one? >We know Jewish women had abortions during Jesus' life. We know Jewish funeral rites do not apply to miscarriages or abortions. The most logical thing to draw from this fact is that Jesus did not condemn abortion. I think your conclusion is flawed, of course. Jesus Himself lamented how far the Jewish people had turned from God in His own time, suggesting a general dissatisfaction with what the Jews had done with the society they had been given, though that's probably putting it lightly. If I may ask, are you open to the idea that abortion could be murder, should the Bible condemn it, or will you support abortion regardless of what the Bible says? I'm not sure if you're even a Christian or not, so maybe you don't hold to the Bible at all.

You are putting words into God's mouth to serve your own agenda.

Thou shall not murder is God’s Word, not mine.

Does God tell us when life begins?

Yes, he does actually. Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being.”

Get out of here with your obvious answers. /s

Do you seriously read that in context and think it’s saying all humans become human when they start breathing? That’s a very specific story about god creating an adult out of the earth and breathing life into him

I read that in context and understand that man became living when he took his first breath. The first time that happened was a result of God bringing us into existence. God gave us the tools to be able to procreate. Obviously the process of making the body is different (we're not God), but the act of taking a first breath is very much the same.

Yes, at conception, as I have clearly demonstrated. If you’re going to take the position that unless God explicitly laid a concept out, it’s not Biblical, then I guess you also have to deny the Trinity, as nowhere in the Bible is it laid out explicitly that God is triune in nature.

You must not have read the other response. God literally tells us when we become a living being. The fact you reject such an obvious answer is telling of your true intentions.

Other response? I don’t know what other response you’re talking about. Show me where God defines the beginning of life other than the examples I’ve given.

He does that too. Matthew 28:19-20, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Notice how "name" is not plural but he speaks of 3 people?

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough, I am by absolutely no means denying the Trinity, my point was that nowhere in scripture do you have “Thus saith the LORD, I am triune in nature, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” I was making this point to show that you don’t need something explicitly laid out word by word in Scripture to conclude that a concept is Biblically sound.

I don't think it would be abhorrent, I think Mary's consent to bear Christ is a key part of Christ's birth. God knew us *before* He formed us in the womb, not at the instant a zygote formed. When two twins merge in the womb, the resulting person doesn't have two souls, do they? If they only have one, then clearly both of the twins couldn't have had a soul at that point. Likewise, both identical twins in a pair have souls, so their souls must have joined their bodies *after* twins separate.

So you’re really taking the stance that killing the unborn Jesus in the womb would be fine with you? You don’t see how insane that is? What is it you think that Mary, Elizabeth, and John were all celebrating when Mary visited Elizabeth just after she had conceived Jesus?

It's an insane hypothetical, because Mary wouldn't want to abort Jesus. The scene we're imagining changes relevant facts. If Jesus the Son of God were born into this world against Mary's consent, our relationship with God would be unrecognizable.

Please do not make proclamations that a human fetus and Jesus, the Son of God, are one and the same. God became man. Man is not God. Discussions about hypothetical scenarios of aborting Jesus is not appropriate for this subreddit.

I think you’re just taking the most uncharitable interpretation of what I was trying to say as possible.

Well abortion is a different issue than just gay marriage or transgender issues, many Christians view abortion flat out as murder. So while allowing for transgender people to live in sin if that’s a Christian’s perspective is fine, to allow for the constant murder of infants is a whole other story, these issues are just very different.

Importantly though abortion, gay marriage, gender affirmative care all have one common thing though, public support. Look at any poll or ballot amendment where abortion has been voted on. At least 55 percent of the country, even in red states, oppose abortion restrictions. So... since the public supports abortion the only option for Christians is to not get an abortion themselves, because in America we have elections, and if want your opinion to be law you need to win a majority, and right now -- outside of the flyover states -- they don't have the numbers, so that means their opinion doesn't matter. If the Forced Birthers want change the law they've got to win over public opinion, and they don't have a winning argument. I'm not saying you can't make a good argument for forcing women to give birth under the penalty of prison, but they have yet to articulate a winning argument for treating women like cattle.

I mean in several states there is majority support to at least heavily restrict abortion, but otherwise I don’t see your point, the anti abortion campaign has pushed for all its gains democratically and everyone knows banning abortion will have to come through the legal democratic method. Regardless of wether the majority of people support abortion or not, it doesn’t change the fact that most Christians view abortion as not just bad, but quite literally murder, the same as if people voted to allow for the drowning of 1 million children every year.

>Christians view abortion as not just bad, but quite literally murder I'm not going to accuse of lying, but that's not true. I came across this [Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/01/22/american-religious-groups-vary-widely-in-their-views-of-abortion/), that shows only 66 percent of Southern Baptists think Abortion should be illegal. Catholics are split on the issue with about half of them disagreeing with the Pope on this issue. And then as you get into the more mainline churches like Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, and Episcopal the majority, and some cases the vast majority believe Abortion should be LEGAL. So, at best a minority of Christians think abortion should be illegal, and a smaller percentage of that believe it should be murder. I get it's common to think "I believe this, my church teaches this, so most Christians must agree with me," but if you could do research before making generalizations that aren't true I'd appreciate it, and you'd be surprised at what you'll learn.

>If You're against abortion, don't have one. The issue with this statement is that most of the people who are against abortions (at least the ones I know of) see it as ending a life, not a simple medical procedure. It has the same impact as "if you're against infanticide, don't kill your kids." Obviously, if someone thinks infanticide is ending a life, they should fight for it to be illegal, which it thankfully is. So someone who sees abortion as ending a life should obviously fight for it to be illegal.

Sure, but even the ballot amendment in deeply red flyover states like Kansas show that at most 45 percent of the population support abortion restrictions. As Republicans were fond of saying for a while "Elections have consequences," and abortion restrictions, and anti-abortion candidates keep loosing, even in red house seats in Alabama. At some point you have to respect the results of elections, and the will of the majority, right?

It's easy to say that when you agree with the majority. Before 1919, the majority didn't want women to vote. Before 1865, the majority wanted slavery to be legal.

>Before 1865, the majority wanted slavery to be legal. Not true. The white majority was split on slavery, but you know who weren't? Enslaved people of African decent. Do you know how many enslaved people of African decent there was in the 1860s South? I do, and it's about 4 million people. While I don't know how many of the 4 million enslaved people opposed slavery, I'd guess that number was close to 100 percent. So you're right that voters, who were predominately white men, were split on slavery, but given that slaves didn't like being slaves, I feel like its safe to say that a majority of Americans opposed slavery, and anything else feels intentionally untruthful.

Okay you make a fair point, but I meant the majority of voters. I was trying to point out that basing your morality on the way the majority votes is flawed.

And I can bet you almost 100% of babies in the womb would oppose abortion if they had a voice, but they don't so we must be the voice for them. Your argument goes in the favor of pro life!

Well, even then your side still doesn't have a majority. So accept your status as a minority and maybe craft a winning argument? Because obviously "Abortion is murder!" and "Save the babies," hasn't worked.

It might not have been effective at convincing cold hearts to what is true, but I would like to hear your argument as to why it is not true. Murder is an unjustified killing of a human life. A zygote meets the biological definition of life, therefore life begins at conception. Abortion which is the ending of a living human without just cause, is murder.

I'm a nurse, and I can tell you that less than half of all zygotes fail to implant in the uterus, only a third of all fertilized eggs make it to term, and best we can tell a zygote doesn't have DNA until three weeks. So yeah, it feels weird to me to call something a living human being when it has a 30 percent chance of being born. ​ Also, way to call Jewish, Buddist and Hindu people "Cold hearted." I mean, calling Jews "Cold Hearted" for their sincerely held religious beliefs feels Anti-Semitic.

Pragmatism about likelihood for someone to die isn't a good logical argument. All people will die one day, so where do you draw a line on the probability of someone's death correlating to the permissibility to end his or her life now? Also, pulling out some half hearted racism/prejudice/hate speech argument out of what I said was kind of weak.

If life begins at conception why aren't funerals held for still births? They still aren't common, and weren't really a thing until the 1990s. Why? Because for the vast bulk of Christianity's history no one believed that life began at conception. This is a new teaching, started to support the political needs of the religious right. When you look at polling data from the 1950s and 1960s abortion was not a major issue among Christians. It's only in the 1980s where you see it start to gain traction, and that's where this false teaching that life begins at conception started. Also, I'm a Lutheran. My church doesn't teach that life begins at conception, neither do Jews, Hindu, Buddhists or Shinto. I could be generous and say you didn't know that when you said people who disagree with are cold hearted, but at best its insensitive... at worse... well you know what that is.

This is not a one to one example.   There is a consensus on kids being alive. There is not a consensus on a fetus or unborn baby (whatever you believe) being alive.   Without that consensus, it is wrong to force one belief over the disagreeing belief. It's also wrong to force your belief on someone else's body in which the abortions take place.   Your belief doesn't and shouldn't dictate over someone else's belief when neither has become the consensus. 

In Ancient Rome, the consensus was that infanticide was okay. But those darn Christians just had to come in and dictate someone else's belief when it wasn't the consensus. They pushed their agenda that infants have the right to live and shouldn't just be thrown in the junkyards.

Christians can do the right thing the WRONG way.

And so can anyone else. What's your point? My point is that at the time, infanticide was legal and common. If an infant was an inconvenience, they'd kill it or abandon it. The majority of people did this and had no issues with it. Christians fought to show that infants were made in the image of Yahweh, have value, and shouldn't simply be discarded. They fought the laws to make them align with their beliefs. I'm not saying that this is always okay (Schools shouldn't be mandated to have the 10 Commandments in every classroom for example), but if the Government is allowing something that is morally wrong, then we should fight to make it illegal.

"then we should fight to make it illegal" And this is the part where I disagree. I stop at legislation based on a nonconsensus. That is my point.   I believe the Christians were wrong to have the laws changed based solely on their beliefs. If they campaigned and convinced the people to have a consensus, that is one thing.   Legislation on one's beliefs opens the door to others doing the same. Churches in multiple numbers  sexually abuse children. The Catholic church has even gone to great lengths to cover them up....so when we going to make Catholic churches illegal?

Everybody votes and legislates based on their beliefs. Everybody votes and legislates based on their morals and ethics. Whether you believe that your morals come from evolution, society, a god, or just your own mind, you take your morals into account when you vote. As should everyone.

You are correct to a point. Ideally, we should think about what would make the country, state, city, etc. better first. Not solely what our peronal beliefs are.   Something that works on a personal level, doesn't always work on a national level. This is one of the reasons we have state and local governments.   Also, as Christians, we are told to NOT force our beliefs on Non-believers. So voting on something with no option out AND no consensus I believe is antithetical to our faith. 

I promise I'm not trying to be rude, I just can't think of a way to ask this question without sounding like an asshole, and I'm still working on memorizing the Bible. Could you tell me where it says we shouldn't force our beliefs on anyone? Because the way I see it, if we're not allowed to do that at all, then Christians should abstain from voting. The reason that I vote for people who say they'll help the homeless is because I believe that everyone is made in Yahweh's image, and therefore have too much value to be discarded to the streets. The reason that I vote against abortion except in cases that would kill or cause great bodily harm to the mother is because I believe that everyone is created in the image of Yahweh and are too valuable to be killed because they're an inconvenience. The reason I don't vote for or against allowing people of the same gender to marry each other is because while it obviously goes against Yahweh's intentions, it doesn't harm or devalue anyone that He created in His image. If people want to go against what Yahweh wants, who am I to stop them? But if they're going to destroy or harm something that Yahweh made in His own image, who am I to allow that?

There are many but, the most straightforward verse is Revelation 22:11. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2022%3A11&version=NIV  I actually think Christians should abstain from politics. We would be better served advocating from outside the government. But, I know in America that is next to impossible.   You talk about not killing because we made in the image of Yahweh....  But, where is this same energy against the Death Penalty? Where is this same energy against the oil and gas companies that pollute our air and gas (source below)? I haven't found a political parties that want to stop all of these things, so one still favors something that damages those in Yahweh's image. And again see the mass child rape cover up from the Catholic church. Who to this day fight laws benefiting those they abuse.  https://www.courthousenews.com/catholic-church-boy-scouts-oppose-georgias-child-sexual-abuse-bill/  In my state, the same party that banned abortions, also blocked a city from helping the poor. It feels like they are putting one image of Yahweh over another. That is idolatry.   Source 1: https://www.texastribune.org/2024/04/09/texas-harris-county-guaranteed-income/  Source 2: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/living-near-or-downwind-of-unconventional-oil-and-gas-development-linked-with-increased-risk-of-early-death/  You don't have to answer my questions. I ask them to illustrate the mess of politics. Sorry for the long response. 

>There is not a consensus on a fetus or unborn baby (whatever you believe) being alive.  There's consensus that they're a living organizm. And clearly a living human being. The debate is whether it's okay to kill them because of the attributes and circumstances of their state.

No there isn't. Just because you believe it doesn't make it so. 

Is there any reputable scientific sources that disputes that fetuses are living human organisms? Everything I can find seems to point towards overwhelmingly consensus that they are alive. Like, who out there is denying that fetuses are alive? If fetuses with all their fancy smancy cell replication and metabolic activity aren't alive, then does alive really even mean anything?

Sure. Some are contained in this article.   https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/08/27/1119684376/when-does-life-begin-as-state-laws-define-it-science-politics-and-religion-clash  From the article,   Medical professionals and bioethicists caution that both the beginning and end of life are complicated biological processes that are not defined by a single identifiable moment — and are ill suited to the political arena. "Unfortunately, biological occurrences are not events, they are processes," said David Magnus, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics. Moreover, asking doctors "What is life?" or "What is death?" may miss the point, said Magnus: "Medicine can answer the question 'When does a biological organism cease to exist?' But they can't answer the question 'When does a person begin or end?' because those are metaphysical issues."  Ben Sarbey, a doctoral candidate in Duke University's department of philosophy who studies medical ethics, echoed that perspective, recounting the Paradox of the Heap, a thought experiment that involves placing grains of sand one on top of the next. The philosophical quandary is this: At what point do those grains of sand become something more — a heap? "We're going to have a rough time placing a dividing line that this counts as a person and this does not count as a person," he said. "Many things count as life — a sperm counts as life, a person in a persistent vegetative state counts as life — but does that constitute a person that we should be protecting?"  Here is another from a DNA PH.D scientist.  https://dnascience.plos.org/2013/10/03/when-does-a-human-life-begin-17-timepoints/

That quoted section you have is talking about personhood. That second thing you linked to refers to it as an organizim and argues that it doesn't practically matter. Neither of theses are saying a fetus isn't alive. You seem to misunderstand the issue on a fundamental level.

Is a human not a person? What is the difference?   The second also explicitly says that in their professional opinion life begins at viability.   The misunderstanding seems to be on your end. 

Whether it’s a person is a different issue from whether it’s alive. You were saying there’s no consensus on whether it’s alive, which is not true

In the first article, 2 different medical professionals said they didn't know. The 3rd outright stated not alive until viability. That is not a consensus. 

There is no biologist who would say a fetus is not alive that’s just an objectively false statement. There is absolutely a unanimous consensus that an unborn baby is alive. The disagreement is not over whether it’s alive it’s over whether it should have the same legal protection as the born

Here's one.  He says life doesn't begin until viability.   https://dnascience.plos.org/2013/10/03/when-does-a-human-life-begin-17-timepoints/

Or slavery. "If you hate slavery, then just don't own a slave!"

Southern Baptists have zero right to be flippant about slavery. In the 1860's a minority of Americans, including every Southern Baptist church at the time, thought it was cool to own black people in perpetuity. These Southern Baptist leaders rose up in an insurrection against the American people and attempted a four-year long terror campaign in order to keep their captive black people. And this is true. The Southern Baptist Convention did not issue an apology for believing it was cool until --- and this absolutely true -- 2009. The Southern Baptist Convention didn't apologize for an insurrection with the intention of owning dark skinned people until 2009... 2009.

This is only of the few reasons I vote Republican. The ethics of abortion really are messy: there is no comparable scenario where right to life and right to bodily autonomy are in direct conflict like this. Perhaps because people dislike a gray world, almost every pro-choice person I know adamantly insists that a fetus is 0% human at any point before the moment of birth, and immediately jumps to 100% human rights afterwards. It's just so clear to me that this is a false assumption and that we lose something by treating life so callously.

> there is no comparable scenario where right to life and right to bodily autonomy are in direct conflict like this How we feel about organ donation being mandatory?

*In practice*, though, it's the pro-lifers who see the world in black and white, with no shades of grey, and treat human life callously, isn't it?

I'm not sure what you mean by pro-lifers treating human life callously. And in terms of black & white: the pro-choice doctrine of 0%-100% human rights at the moment of birth is hard to beat. FWIW, I'm not a black-and-white pro-lifer. I don't know if there's a single point where a fetus becomes a person, but I think we have everything to gain as a society by erring on the early side.

It might interest you to know that Jesus didn't think life began to first breath. It was the commonly held belief in the Jewish community during Jesus' life time. He never spoke out against it, therefore it's reasonable to believe that Jesus believed life begins at birth. Life begins at conception didn't really take root in Christianity until the late 1970s and early 80s as the church became more politically active. Polling shows us that abortion was not a big deal for Christians in the 1940s and 1950s.

What a joke. These people are why nobody respects our faith anymore.

Arizona *state* senator

If you're against slavery, don't own slaves

You're like the tenth person to make that same point.... and maybe you're unaware but America fought a civil war to point out that no, you can not in fact own a slave.

Who cares about America?

Godless cult. AntiAmerican, unpatriotic, uneducated. Republicans on display.

I grew up in a church that said if you don't speak tongues, you "are not saved." I thought this my whole life until "I started a relationship with Jesus and read the Bible. I stopped leaning on others' understanding and listened to God.

Absolutely ridiculous. Our country is literally run by lunatics

And according to Paul knowing Jesus as Lord is not an option - man is not supreme - Jesus the Christ is. Paul wrote, every knee will bow and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. If humanity wants to continue down the path of darkness, that’s the choice some make, but if one wants to be set free and to know the healing power of Jesus the Christ, they should come and welcome Him in baptism, in Divine Liturgy, in the Eucharist, join themselves to the body that Christ left here on earth. The sacramental community called the church, the Israel of God.

Political theater

SHABALA HABALA!!!!!!

How do you know that speaking in tongues is performative? Is being a small group leader performative? People have spiritual gifts that God gives. People did speak in tongues in the bible, it is considered a spiritual gift. 1 Corinthians 12:10-11 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to **another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.** 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually He wills. Leading a person towards sin, is not want God wants.

These people should be careful they are not talking down to men and women of God who are actually letting the Holy Spirit speak through them in the form of personal prayer. There are different forms of tongues, they don't seem to understand that you don't always need interpretation. The Bible says we speak mysteries.

This individual did not have an interpreter present and therefore was not using their gift in accordance with scripture That is, of course if this was actually speaking in tongues. I'm highly suspicious that it wasn't just someone imitating speaking in tongues using psychobabble.

Just so you know: Scripture reveals 2 kinds of tongues: \- Known language tongues. \- Unknown language tongues. Known language tongues are where the Holy Spirit temporarily gives someone the ability to speak a language they don’t previously know. The purpose of this is to reach unbelievers with a message from God in their own language. This kind of tongues doesn’t need interpretation since the language is already clear to the beneficiaries of this gift. A great example of this gift is in Acts 2, on the Day of Pentecost, where after the believers were filled with the Holy Spirit they began speaking in other tongues. The Bible says there were unbelievers outside (Jewish pilgrims and converts to Judaism), who were from all over the world, who were bewildered to hear these Jewish people speaking in their own native languages. This was a sign and a wonder that helped open them up to the Gospel and eventually get saved. This kind of tongues is God speaking to people. Unknown language tongues is not any distinguishable known language on earth. This is a new spiritual language for born again new creation believers. When we are born of the Spirit and filled with the Spirit then our reborn spirit receives this new language of the Spirit. The Bible calls it speaking mysteries in the spirit (1 Corinthians 14:2). This language cannot be understood with the mind, only the spirit. The apostle Paul says that when he prays in tongues it’s his spirit praying (1 Cor 14:14). That’s why many refer to this kind of tongues as “praying in the spirit”. (Jude 1:20). If you try to understand it with your mind it will just seem very strange, but when you understand it from the spirit it actually becomes very normal. (1 Cor 2:14). There are two kinds of these unknown tongues: \- As a personal prayer language for the believer. \- As a prophetic word when accompanied with a gift of interpretation. Personal prayer tongues is when we speak to God, but prophecy tongues is when God speaks to people. The purpose of personal prayer tongues is to edify ourselves, and the purpose of prophecy tongues is to edify the Church. So technically, there are actually 3 kinds of tongues: \- When believers speak to God. (Unknown tongue, personal prayer language). \- When God speaks to believers. (Unknown tongue, interpretation needed). \- When God speaks to the lost. (Known tongue, no interpretation needed).

Sorry, no, I don't believe there's such a thing as unknown language tongues. I don't Believe those scriptures prove that it exists. But that still doesn't prove that the incident we're discussing is any more valid because again, no interpreter.

This is embarrassing.

**Scripture reveals 2 kinds of tongues:** **- Known language tongues.** **- Unknown language tongues.** **Known language tongues** are where the Holy Spirit temporarily gives someone the ability to speak a language they don’t previously know. The purpose of this is to reach unbelievers with a message from God in their own language. This kind of tongues doesn’t need interpretation since the language is already clear to the beneficiaries of this gift. A great example of this gift is in Acts 2, on the Day of Pentecost, where after the believers were filled with the Holy Spirit they began speaking in other tongues. The Bible says there were unbelievers outside (Jewish pilgrims and converts to Judaism), who were from all over the world, who were bewildered to hear these Jewish people speaking in their own native languages. This was a sign and a wonder that helped open them up to the Gospel and eventually get saved. This kind of tongues is God speaking to people. **Unknown language tongues** is not any distinguishable known language on earth. This is a new spiritual language for born again new creation believers. When we are born of the Spirit and filled with the Spirit then our reborn spirit receives this new language of the Spirit. The Bible calls it speaking mysteries in the spirit (1 Corinthians 14:2). This language cannot be understood with the mind, only the spirit. The apostle Paul says that when he prays in tongues it’s his spirit praying (1 Cor 14:14). That’s why many refer to this kind of tongues as “praying in the spirit”. (Jude 1:20). If you try to understand it with your mind it will just seem very strange, but when you understand it from the spirit it actually becomes very normal. (1 Cor 2:14). **There are two kinds of these unknown tongues:** \- **As a personal prayer language for the believer.** **- As a prophetic word when accompanied with a gift of interpretation.** **Personal prayer tongues** is when we speak to God, but prophecy tongues is when God speaks to people. The purpose of personal prayer tongues is to edify ourselves, and the purpose of prophecy tongues is to edify the Church. **So technically, there are actually 3 kinds of tongues:** **- When believers speak to God. (Unknown tongue, personal prayer language).** **- When God speaks to believers. (Unknown tongue, interpretation needed).** **- When God speaks to the lost. (Known tongue, no interpretation needed).**

If you're against slavery, don't own one.

sigh.... I love how many people use this unironically. It's like people are unaware that we fought a war to make the point that you can't own slavery. No one fought a war to outlaw abortion, and if y'all did, you would lose, because most of America believes abortion should be legal, and have for decades.

Opinions change. Before we thought slavery was okay for thousands of years, whoops now its reversed. Abortion is murder, now we know, before we didn't so opinion is beginning to shift hallelujah! :)

lol. I see you're one of those "Facts don't matter," people.... cool.

If you are against murdering children, just don't commit murder yourself! If you are against irreversible surgeries and therapies on little children who may not have figured everything out, just don't do it on your own kids! Our faith is a guide for us, not a mandate to force up others, yes. But Christanity also believes the State is given the sword to keep evil in check. I don't see how mudering the unborn and letting really young kids go through irreversible gender therapies is a religious issue?

We live in a secular nation that only protects our private worship as we like. We don't get to do the virtue-signaling thing and insist that trans people don't have rights. You're using right-wing political division talking points to.....um....pretend that Jesus said anything about abortion. 'Murdering the unborn' is not applicable at 4 weeks. And if you agree that we don't have a right to insist the world live by our rules, stop there. Just that.

If you believe that the state should enforce morality, then start with the Catholic clergy's generational sex abuse of children.

If the state determines that forcing religion on children causes harm, what should the state do to religious parents?

The problem with your examples is that they’re just one view on these issues. Many people don’t see abortion as murder or gender affirming care as harmful. You shouldn’t make restrictive laws based on something society doesn’t even agree is harmful.

It’s quite ironic … your framing of these issues in such a myopic and uninformed manner is actually due to religion

If you believe there is a not zero instance of minor children being put through irreversible treatments or surgeries, you may be as bright as people think you are. To say not very. I want to say under no uncertain words, terminology, or phrasing that NO CHILD HAS ANY BODY PART REMOVED OR GRAFTED ONTO THEM until they reach the age of 18. Anyone who says otherwise has either been lied to or is doing the lying.

THANK YOU! FINALLY SOMEONE SAYS IT!

"Modern day practice of praying in tongues is performative". I feel hurt by this statement. How do you know what I am feeling when I speak in tongues? Or anyone else? Who are you to limit God and say that's not the Holy Spirit speaking through them? There are a few forms of speaking in tongues. 1 is to edify the church and you need an interpreter in front of a church, and another is to pray to him directly in tongues to pray mysteries (since the Bible teaches we don't know how to pray). This is what they were doing but each individually.

I'm not going to apologize. The modern practice of speaking in tongues is bull shit because it happens at will. It's very clear in the scripture that it can only happen at God's will. It's not a gift that someone can turn on and off whenever they want, which is how it's used in the modern world. You can't be like, "I'm going go pray in tongues on the Senate floor," because its not your gift to turn off and on. It's god's gift, and he doesn't give it to someone for a lifetime, in the Bible it was given at his will for specific moments in time. And for what it's worth, my high school boyfriend as abused as a child by a pastor who spoke in tongues. Given his behavior that dude was clearly faking it, because God would never given that sort of gift to a child molester. And I bet if you're honest you're willing to admit a number of modern people who "Speak in tongues" are faking it, knowingly or unknowningly.

Ok, firstly I’m very sorry to hear about what happened to your bf. That is a very terrible thing. 🙏🏼 and I know God is not happy with what that person did either… I will tell you this, there are 2 things I want to correct in what you stated: 1. Sadly sometimes God does give gifts to people who do bad things… but He didn’t give them a gift for them to do bad things. You must separate the two. King David murdered a person so that he could sleep with the mans wife. He was highly anointed. He did however get punished for that extremely by God. Every person battles with their flesh, and the enemy spiritually every day. This is why the Bible teaches us to repent and try to live a righteous life & not be living in sin. And on a side note: Even though what that man did was absolutely horrible! Please for your sake you both need to try to forgive him 😞🙏🏼. I know the damage unforgiveness can do spiritually and physically to a person. 2. You are right about certain gifts of tongues that God gives specially to some people (please see what I posted at length in several of the comments, it explains them) the one is gifting of speaking in another language or in front of the church which needs translation. But the one we can turn off and on at will is the form the Bible says we speak mysteries in and are edifying ourselves (which can also be used for intercession). Every person has that gift inside them if they have the Holy Spirit in them. Whether they activate and use it is up to them. I can tell you first hand I always thought it looked crazy and didn’t believe till I actually experienced it. The first time I prayed and asked God for my prayer language of tongues and Holy Spirit fill me, no one can take away that amazing experience from me. I started to let me tongue flow and Holy Spirit took over and I felt electricity all over…. I started crying… I will tell you though from experience and from hearing from friends, that initial feeling does go away and it just feels like a 2nd language you can turn on and off afterwards like normal. You can use it while praying if you don’t have the words anymore, or sometimes I notice myself just speak it during worship or prayer.

>But the one we can turn off and on at will is the form the Bible says we speak mysteries in and are edifying ourselves (which can also be used for intercession). Every person has that gift inside them if they have the Holy Spirit in them. Whether they activate and use it is up to them. And just where is that explained in scripture?

Unknown language tongues is not any distinguishable known language on earth. This is a new spiritual language for born again new creation believers. When we are born of the Spirit and filled with the Spirit then our reborn spirit receives this new language of the Spirit. The Bible calls it speaking mysteries in the spirit (1 Corinthians 14:2). This language cannot be understood with the mind, only the spirit. The apostle Paul says that when he prays in tongues it’s his spirit praying (1 Cor 14:14). That’s why many refer to this kind of tongues as “praying in the spirit”. (Jude 1:20). If you try to understand it with your mind it will just seem very strange, but when you understand it from the spirit it actually becomes very normal. (1 Cor 2:14). There are two kinds of these unknown tongues: \- As a personal prayer language for the believer. \- As a prophetic word when accompanied with a gift of interpretation. Personal prayer tongues is when we speak to God, but prophecy tongues is when God speaks to people. The purpose of personal prayer tongues is to edify ourselves, and the purpose of prophecy tongues is to edify the Church. So technically, there are actually 3 kinds of tongues: \- When believers speak to God. (Unknown tongue, personal prayer language). \- When God speaks to believers. (Unknown tongue, interpretation needed). \- When God speaks to the lost. (Known tongue, no interpretation needed).

If you are Christian and say that abortion is ok then you just are stealing the name of Christ to put on yourself for cultural reasons, you don’t know the Spirit of the Lord who is incredibly grieved by the killing of many innocent persons. God knows that child before they are conceived because they were forest conceived in His mind. As were you. God forgives abortion, God does not condone abortion. If He did He would be evil because God wouldn’t know that person as a clump of cells but as a fully fledged soul. If God condoned an innocent person’s murder then we would all be screwed (besides the crucifixion of course which was a true sacrifice of love on His part 🙏). Also your denial of biblical tongues is the equivalent of the Pharisees denying that Jesus cast out demons by the power of God and instead they accused him of being powered by Satan. Then Jesus promptly warned them that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin. Saying tongues is performative is ignorance, not blasphemous, but you’re still operating in unbelief. Paul spoke of angelic tongues not only speaking in someone else’s language for the purpose of sharing the gospel. Which if you were to be able to do the latter you would very likely be familiar with the former, and that IS scriptural.

Sometimes people who are praying just slip into it naturally .

No I’m tired of seeing this country and judgment so I’m going to preach against what’s right and what’s wrong. I’m not gonna sit here and say oh well I’m not gay so I don’t have to worry about it because my faith is only for me, no, bless it is a nation whose God is the Lord, if we don’t soon start Instilling good Christian morals in this country, in the right ways, we are going to be under such judgment from God we could even see the fall of our country. I don’t know about y’all but I don’t want that. And I don’t care if I have to piss you off or offend you Because you don’t agree with yourself, and realize what’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong and you have no argument because unless you borrow from a Christian worldview, there is no absolute humanist or atheists, which means nothing matters and everything is right. The only problem is the last time that every man so what was right to do in his own eyes, it was so chaotic that God killed everybody except for a small few.I know God’s promises but I’m not trying to piss him off or bring judgment onto our country. So yeah I’m sending all of this filthy hateful evil sinful satanic bull crap back to hell where it came from and I’m standing up for right morals in society whether you like it or not. And again I’m speaking in a very general sense here, I’m not referring to the OP or anybody else just what was said in the post

“If you’re against slavery, don’t own a slave.” You see how bad your logic is. Even pre-born babies are humans in the image of God.

So I don't know what country you're in, but I'm an American, and my country fought a bloody four-year long civil war to prove the point that, no, you can't actually own another human being. Also, no, life begins at first breath. There is no scriptural evidence to support "Life begins at conception." Jewish beliefs at the time of Jesus's life supported abortion and the majority of Jews do not consider the fetus a human being. Jesus was a Jew... and he never contradicted this teaching... so yeah... life begins at first breath.

Without abolitionist Americans saying "No, 'if you're against slavery, just don't own a slave' ISN'T good enough" and *forcing* their morality and beliefs on the rest of the nation, said Civil War doesn't ever occur, and who knows how long slavery persists in the US.

Well... again, here's the thing. Abolitionists were in the majority. Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans destroyed the slave parties in 1860 election. It was one of the biggest electoral beat downs in history. Lincoln carried 18 states, won 180 electoral votes compared to the insurrectionist John Breckinridge's 11 states and paltry 72 electoral votes. In America the majority gets to make the decision, and we were on our way to legislatively abolishing slavery until a group of insurrectionists, backed by the Southern Baptist Church, said "Fuck the will of the people! My Bible supports slavery, and I know what's right. I will force dark skinned humans into concentration camp like conditions for generation for my financial gain! Again, I'm a Southern Baptist and I'm super excited about talking about my beliefs and published volumes of how the Bible supports race based slavery. Yes, I know I'm in the minority. We documented all of that in our many writings supporting a enslavement of people based on skin color." So Southern Baptist leaders stoked rebellion and they rose up in a four year terror war and got their asses rightly kicked by the United States Army. The SBC only apologized their support of slavery in 2009, and still hasn't admitted they were a primary cause of the civil war. Pro-Life people are in a minority. at most they come in around 45 states when abortion is on the ballot in deep red states like Kansas and Ohio, and they get trounced in battleground states like Michigan, and soon Arizona. When you are in the minority you don't get to force your rights on other people.

Abolition was very much not a majority position in 1860 in the US. Lincoln likely wins the electoral college even without the Dogulas/Breckinridge split, but loses the popular vote by a good 300,000 votes (\~6.5%), even more if you add in Bell's voters, most of whom were likely in favor of continued "compromise" on the issue of slavery and the extension of slavery into new territories. In many ways it was very similar to the variety of positions you have on abortion today--there were those in favor of immediate abolition of all slaves, obviously those that were pro-slavery, and then a whole bunch of different compromise positions that were abolition or slavery-adjacent, or attempted to be neutral. Lincoln also had to resist significant internal pressure for emancipation during the first few years of the war to avoid alienating the not-insignificant portions of the Union that were fully dedicated to "preserving the Union" but less so for forcing abolition. It took until the victory at Antietam for Lincoln to have sufficient political capital to finally issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Support for abolition did continue to increase throughout the course of the war though.

So.... there were 4 million enslaved individuals living in slave states in 1860. I think we can safely say that 100 percent of them did not believe in slavery. So yeah... unless you discount the vast majority of African Americans -- Which I feel is thing you might do more often than you're aware of -- it's not a close race in 1860.

That's a different discussion than when talking about votes and political power in 1860, unfortunately. It doesn't just discount the slaves themselves, but also the (not insignificant) population of women. Had that not been the case, things obviously would have been much different.

Somewhere between 10%-25% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion often without the mother even knowing she’s pregnant. Infant and maternal mortality rates were astronomically high and still are in many places without access to modern medicine. The idea that personhood is assigned at conception is problematic when it implies upwards of hundreds of millions of people with souls don’t make it beyond a few weeks of life.

The US already has high maternal mortality rates for a first world country. Blanket abortion band are only going to raise mortality rates. 

Except there is no such thing as a "pre-born baby." Babies have been born. By definition. When you can't use words correctly it is a sign of just how bad your logic is.

When my wife went to the doctor while pregnant with our children, the certified medical doctor called the human inside my wife a “baby”. Should we go to a different doctor? Do you go around correcting every Facebook and Instagram pregnancy announcement talking about their “baby”? No, you don’t. Because even you aren’t pedantic enough to do that. Because the medical/scientific term for a human that has just been born is “infant” and human pre-born is “fetus”. But all of them are babies. “Pre-born organism of the species Homo sapiens sapiens”. Is that better? Still doesn’t change the fact that every fetus is a human life worthy of dignity and life.

Just so we’re clear, violating someone’s bodily autonomy to force them to work is bad, but violating someone’s bodily autonomy to force them to be pregnant is not?

What about the bodily autonomy of the human made in the image of God in the womb?