A question about Charismaticism.

[Lance_Iguana]

A question about Charismaticism/ Oneness ideas.

Ok, I've heard the term before, and I want to make sure. I want to form a full opinion about this movement, but don't know enough about it to be sure.

I'm pretty sure most of the churches in my area are Charismatic, and I've read a few apologetics books recently that also might be under this label.

Now, can someone give me a brief idea about what it means to be a charismatic? After that I will give my opinion of the movement, thank you.


In advance, I might criticize the movement, but it won't be against the followers themselves, just what I understand about it.

I try to push that in front allot, that I try not to attack people, but the idea. Thank you.

 

[jasoncran]

lovely

the idea that the holy ghost and the gifts and miracles are for today

speaking in unknown toungues during worship with or without interpretation


the idea that we can cast out the devil via openly talking to him in prayer and quoting scriptures.
that is outside the charismatic movement

to name a few of the doctrines.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

I was wondering what it was. I thought maybe it was a style of evangelising, a charismatic style if I might say so.

I wanted to know if Charismatics had anything to do with this logic I've seen.


Example.

God is perfect, and we rebelled against him and those that don't accept him are rebelling against him.
because of God's perfection, no logic works on him and we could never fit logic into him.

Meaning, God dosen't need us, but lets us exist, and that is love because he dosen't need us.
We disobeyed him and there for, he has no obligation to forgive us for anything, but he chooses to anyway, that's love.

Jesus is the example of Love because God decided to get rid of the ritual rules and finally allow us to be resealed in the covenant again, but only if we accept Jesus as the literal incarnation of God as a man, and accept what he did for us.

Is that the gist of it? (if that is so, I'll then explain criticism I have of that line of logic, Once again, this is not against any believer, but over the idea itself. Remember that. )

 

[Lance_Iguana]

Lance, as you know, Im not christian, but I was raised s a babtist. In a recent thread about speaking in tongues, my curiosity was peaked about charismatics - so I attended a charasmatic service recently in order to witness the tongues thing.

From my upbringing as a batist, I noticed only a few things that were odd (I may notice more if I attend that church ever again, I probably wont though) - mainly the only thing I noticed that was new to me was the speaking in tongues - which jason refered to when he spoke of the "gifts" - on the surface, they are pretty much just like evangelicals, they just seem to exhibit more outward spiritual attributes (Now that Ive typed it out, I relise its hard to explain in english, I wish you spoke Arabic because the spiritual traits that they exhibit all have arabic terms which specificly describe them. They reminded me of some of the sufi groups I encountered when I was in pakistan)

I think I understand what you are saying, I've attended a church that speaks in tongues near my town, and I have a friend who is going to be a pastor who has been in contact with snake handlers.

 

[jasoncran]

Lance, as you know, Im not christian, but I was raised s a babtist. In a recent thread about speaking in tongues, my curiosity was peaked about charismatics - so I attended a charasmatic service recently in order to witness the tongues thing.

From my upbringing as a batist, I noticed only a few things that were odd (I may notice more if I attend that church ever again, I probably wont though) - mainly the only thing I noticed that was new to me was the speaking in tongues - which jason refered to when he spoke of the "gifts" - on the surface, they are pretty much just like evangelicals, they just seem to exhibit more outward spiritual attributes (Now that Ive typed it out, I relise its hard to explain in english, I wish you spoke Arabic because the spiritual traits that they exhibit all have arabic terms which specificly describe them. They reminded me of some of the sufi groups I encountered when I was in pakistan)

Lance is adressing a very particular sect of charismata, oneness

lance that is oneness

its true that God doesnt need us, but that he does love us in that he wanted us to be with him

its like this, i love my wife but i physically dont need her to live.

with God he doesnt need us to live or to be and we depend him not the other way around

he choose to create us motivated by love, and to let us fall away from him

that part is outside of charismata the other jesus thing the way you mentioned it sounds like oneness.

 

[jasoncran]

I think I understand what you are saying, I've attended a church that speaks in tongues near my town, and I have a friend who is going to be a pastor who has been in contact with snake handlers.

Lol, Please that is soo rare amongst charismata.
lance i am charismatic, and so is pard.lewis, tina and free at one time

 

[Lance_Iguana]

Lol, Please that is soo rare amongst charismata.
lance i am charismatic, and so is pard.lewis, tina and free at one time

This is why I wanted to ask. I wanted to make sure I had the terms correct.

I'm interested in the sects from a sociological point of view. I'll change the title to the thread to keep new posters from getting confused or offended.

 

[PouringRain]

lovely

the idea that the holy ghost and the gifts and miracles are for today

speaking in unknown toungues during worship with or without interpretation

I think Jasoncran explained is well here. The definition that I use in my research is: The group of Christian believers characterized by the belief in outwards manifestations of the Holy Spirit such as through healing and speaking in tongues. Researchers cite tongues as being the main defining characteristic of charismatic groups. It is important to note that charismatic and pentecostal should not be used interchangeably. Even though both believe in tongues, there may be big differences between the two. It is possible to be both, but it is also possible to be only one.

Mujahid, perhaps you can explain and use the arabic even if he may or may not understand. I would be interested in hearing your assessment. Also, could you tell us the type of charismatic congregation you attended? Was it of a specific denomination, or was it non-denominational (or interdenominational)? Also, would you describe for us the way that tongues and other aspects of the service were conducted so that we can understand what your assessment was derived from? Not all churches are conducted in a like manner, so this information would be helpful.

Lance, you asked if charismatics have anything to do with that specific logic. I would say that it is possible. Charismatic is not a denomination on its own. There are even Charismatic Catholic congregations (say that 10 times fast :p). So, it is possible to have charismatics who espouse a number of differing beliefs. The main things that distinguish a charismatic is the outward manifestation of the gifts, and also I would say there are differences in the style of worship-- although, even within that are vastly great variation.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

Thanks PR. I think the 2 churches I'm thinking of with the speaking in tongues were Pentecostal and Mennonite.


Alright, now to address my concerns with the oneness thing.

This is not an attack on the religion of Christianity, but possibly just the logic trail used to convey the idea of Oneness.

The idea that we exist and are left to exist is a sign of God's love is odd, because that really dosen't describe why we even exist in the first place. I also don't necessarily see it as love, but more as tolerance, or amusement on God's part.
A better way to explain this would possibly to state that we don't know why this God allows us to live, but we call it love because that is how we understand it.


The second part. Those that reject God are rebelling against him. Well, this line of logic rests on the idea that he exists in the way that you or anyone describing him already understand. This would mean that God has a definitive definition. But in this same logic, God is to complex to fully know. Its hard to figure out what exactly is meant by " rebelling" when there really is no complete idea of What God is.

Its possible that the person may not be rebelling against God, but the either failed, or simplified idea of God. Its quite possible that the person rejecting the claim made by the evangelist might have a different idea that they are forming on God, and what exactly God means. That person might find the God the Evangelist is describing, a possible Idol that dosen't fit the vastness of the concept of God.

I have other criticism, but I want to get this aired out first, before I jump the shark and cause misconceptions and confusions.

Most of this is me in my philosophical mindset, and not in a set state of a claim. More of a learning position.

 

[jasoncran]

The idea that we exist and are left to exist is a sign of God's love is odd, because that really dosen't describe why we even exist in the first place. I also don't necessarily see it as love, but more as tolerance, or amusement on God's part.
A better way to explain this would possibly to state that we don't know why this God allows us to live, but we call it love because that is how we understand it

why do men pro-create? yes we need to as a species to survive but its more then that.


i think the answer is there to a degree. first off i wont pretend to understand why God made us. men have asked that for yrs and still do.

but i do believe that he did it in love.

 

[Oats]

Thanks PR. I think the 2 churches I'm thinking of with the speaking in tongues were Pentecostal and Mennonite.


Alright, now to address my concerns with the oneness thing.

This is not an attack on the religion of Christianity, but possibly just the logic trail used to convey the idea of Oneness.

Thanks

The idea that we exist and are left to exist is a sign of God's love is odd, because that really dosen't describe why we even exist in the first place. I also don't necessarily see it as love, but more as tolerance, or amusement on God's part.

I would have to disagree with you on that. We were in the Christian opinion created to glorify God. He created us for that purpose because by doing that we are doing what we best know how. It is a perfect experience to fully glorify God. He created us a gift to us.

A better way to explain this would possibly to state that we don't know why this God allows us to live, but we call it love because that is how we understand it.

And because he tells us so

The second part. Those that reject God are rebelling against him. Well, this line of logic rests on the idea that he exists in the way that you or anyone describing him already understand. This would mean that God has a definitive definition. But in this same logic, God is to complex to fully know. Its hard to figure out what exactly is meant by " rebelling" when there really is no complete idea of What God is.

It's possible for an animal to rebel against it's master without truly knowing what the master is. The master calls it rebellion.

Its possible that the person may not be rebelling against God, but the either failed, or simplified idea of God. Its quite possible that the person rejecting the claim made by the evangelist might have a different idea that they are forming on God, and what exactly God means. That person might find the God the Evangelist is describing, a possible Idol that dosen't fit the vastness of the concept of God.

This is a bit unclear

I have other criticism, but I want to get this aired out first, before I jump the shark and cause misconceptions and confusions.

Most of this is me in my philosophical mindset, and not in a set state of a claim. More of a learning position.

Nice thread man

 

[Lance_Iguana]

why do men pro-create? yes we need to as a species to survive but its more then that.

It actually is mostly just for survival, but this has the potential to spin off in multiple differn't direction, and I would rather we stay close to the concept of God him/her/itself before we move on to human concepts.

I think the main problem I have with this analogy is because with the logic I showed, God Has no need to make us, because he is already perfect. This isn't a comment about his love, but his need.

i think the answer is there to a degree. first off i wont pretend to understand why God made us. men have asked that for yrs and still do.

but i do believe that he did it in love.

I'm actually pretty interested in an explanation from a Christian's point of view, as to God's purpose.

Right now, these premesis's rest on the idea that God exists, and Understanding a purpose would be a step in Understanding the complexity of the Christian God.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

I would have to disagree with you on that. We were in the Christian opinion created to glorify God. He created us for that purpose because by doing that we are doing what we best know how. It is a perfect experience to fully glorify God. He created us a gift to us.

This is where my gears are going to start rattling around and clunking, as I try to convey some concepts that are very interesting.

This returns to God's purpose of creating us. If God is perfect, why dose he need us to be, or why even bother creating us? To also mention that how can we know of this perfect experience, if we can't even conceive of perfection? This is also where the selfish God idea comes in, why is it that he needs us to Glorify him at all? If he is perfect, would he not be above any human concept that leads us to this idea of sin? If so, would that mean he is above need himself?

This is where we might start seeing where the muddying up of the concept of God comes from, and the anthropomorphizing of God begins.

And because he tells us so

If I am to accept this premise , I still must know why. I want to know what his need is before I supply his wants.

It's possible for an animal to rebel against it's master without truly knowing what the master is. The master calls it rebellion.

Then we need to ask if the fault of this is from the animal or the Master. If the animal dosen't know what it is doing wrong, or that it is doing wrong in itself, how exactly can the Animal be held responsible?

This is a bit unclear

I know, we are entering the field where we have to comprehend things that might just be symbolic and are based on the ideas that are limited to our understanding and comprehension.

What I was trying to get at is, that possibly, its not God that the person is against, but the logic or inconceivable nature God has. Meaning, the God the evangelist is trying to convey, may be flawed but the evangelist might not see it based on a lack of comprehension or innocent ignorance about a subject they are conveying.

Or that God is way to complex to break down, and our attempts to explain him or try and figure out which God is correct, or his purpose in general might be futile at this given time.

Nice thread man

Thanks.

 

[jasoncran]

It actually is mostly just for survival, but this has the potential to spin off in multiple differn't direction, and I would rather we stay close to the concept of God him/her/itself before we move on to human concepts.

I think the main problem I have with this analogy is because with the logic I showed, God Has no need to make us, because he is already perfect. This isn't a comment about his love, but his need.


I'm actually pretty interested in an explanation from a Christian's point of view, as to God's purpose.

Right now, these premesis's rest on the idea that God exists, and Understanding a purpose would be a step in Understanding the complexity of the Christian God.

lance, i found that i can could better love my wife if i didnt need her to be.

i found something desireable in her but that wanst to fill a whole nor to make me whole
i see god very much that way. he choose to create us as he wanted something to apreciate and to reciprocate.

he didnt need us but choose to make us.

why do some people build? why live at all?

something bigger!
God gives us purpose
sure we mean something to him. that would folly to say that we dont but to say that he need us to be whole isnt quite the picture.he choose to love as that is his nature.

love must be a choice not a biological action.(though that is part of it but one doenst stay married for looks or lust very long)
people get old and fat and ugly yet still remain together.

 

[jasoncran]

the lord told the male and and female ape called adam and eve what not to do, they rebelled.

when they ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree they learned what sin was and what good was in nature

they didnt learn how to sin but like us all have that dual nature to do go good and evil.

 

[Oats]

This is where my gears are going to start rattling around and clunking, as I try to convey some concepts that are very interesting.

This returns to God's purpose of creating us. If God is perfect, why dose he need us to be, or why even bother creating us? To also mention that how can we know of this perfect experience, if we can't even conceive of perfection? This is also where the selfish God idea comes in, why is it that he needs us to Glorify him at all? If he is perfect, would he not be above any human concept that leads us to this idea of sin? If so, would that mean he is above need himself?

The thing with us humans is it's hard to obtain perfection So much so that it seems systematic. But there are no rules for God, everything he does is in his nature to do. He doesn't need anything. But his nature causes him to want good. And do Good. It was good to create us and give us choice. Glorifying him is the greatest gift. Is it selfish of me to adopt a child and buy him an X-box because its the greatest gift he could have? Not the "perfect" example but God's nature is the most magnificent thing ever and it makes us feel unimaginably good to glorify him perfectly. We can't do that in our fallen state but ...yeah.


This is where we might start seeing where the muddying up of the concept of God comes from, and the anthropomorphizing of God begins.

If I am to accept this premise , I still must know why. I want to know what his need is before I supply his wants.

He wants to do good. He wants us to glorify him because we benefit from it and it perfects us

Then we need to ask if the fault of this is from the animal or the Master. If the animal dosen't know what it is doing wrong, or that it is doing wrong in itself, how exactly can the Animal be held responsible?

Because the master does and he has communicated it to the animal in terms he could understand. But he didn't fully explain it because the animal wouldn't understand. He is omnipotent but even that has limits

I know, we are entering the field where we have to comprehend things that might just be symbolic and are based on the ideas that are limited to our understanding and comprehension.

Right

What I was trying to get at is, that possibly, its not God that the person is against, but the logic or inconceivable nature God has. Meaning, the God the evangelist is trying to convey, may be flawed but the evangelist might not see it based on a lack of comprehension or innocent ignorance about a subject they are conveying.

Elaborate...

Or that God is way to complex to break down, and our attempts to explain him or try and figure out which God is correct, or his purpose in general might be futile at this given time.

Thats why he explained it as best as he could.




Thanks.

Good points

 

[Lance_Iguana]

lance, i found that i can could better love my wife if i didnt need her to be.

i found something desireable in her but that wanst to fill a whole nor to make me whole
i see god very much that way. he choose to create us as he wanted something to apreciate and to reciprocate.

But could we not use that logic and state that us and God are symoltanious and that the reason why God is timeless, is because all that is, is timeless. Even with everything that is, there will always and always has been something. So coudln't we say that God's purpose to create us is the same reason we choose to acknowledge/ create him?

To comprehend that which is yet to be comprehended?

he didnt need us but choose to make us.

why do some people build? why live at all?

The reason might be as simply as, because we can. Why not enjoy and do what we can for what little time we do have? That might just be the answer. I don't need a reason to keep breathing other then to just see tomorrow, or to just keep feeling.

something bigger!
God gives us purpose
sure we mean something to him. that would folly to say that we don't but to say that he need us to be whole isnt quite the picture.he choose to love as that is his nature.

Maybe God's nature is a reflection of our own? Maybe we are 2 parts that fulfill each other in a complimentary way, yet separately?

love must be a choice not a biological action.(though that is part of it but one doenst stay married for looks or lust very long)
people get old and fat and ugly yet still remain together.

Then I think its probably a mixture of comprehension, empathy, lust, and plain togetherness. Communication and wanting to be heard and supported. That Is both Biological and intellectual.

 

[jasoncran]

the urging to speak in an unknown tounge out loud and not be interpreted is merely the bad habits of charismatic friends
if its not an interpretation of that unkown tounge then its tween man and God, when its to be interpretated then yes i believe that the urging to speak is very strong but the person that must open the mouth is never ever forced to say it.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

the lord told the male and and female ape called adam and eve what not to do, they rebelled.

when they ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree they learned what sin was and what good was in nature

they didnt learn how to sin but like us all have that dual nature to do go good and evil.

2 points. Maybe this is just a metaphor for our understanding in general and our willingness to continuously keep going, no matter the path. And God is the counterweight we use to balance ourselves from surcomming into either Obsession or neglect?

The other point is why then must we all carry this burden? Why not give a new test every generation to determine our sinful nature?

 

[jasoncran]

2 points. Maybe this is just a metaphor for our understanding in general and our willingness to continuously keep going, no matter the path. And God is the counterweight we use to balance ourselves from surcomming into either Obsession or neglect?

The other point is why then must we all carry this burden? Why not give a new test every generation to determine our sinful nature?

dont need to, we do that ourselves:
the holocaust
the war on terrror in response to 9-11.
korea , vietnam. etc