The Rise of Ron Paul

Frankly, I am disturbed by the rise of Ron Paul in Iowa. Now, admittedly, it's not as huge a setback as the Fox News would have us think. They don't have anything else to run so they play the Iowa Caucus up. Yet, when it's over, they're either going to say that Ron Paul's victory wasn't a big deal or, if somehow Bachmann or Santorum win, they will play up how huge a victory it is. (Side note: if Bachmann and Santorum can't win in the evangelical and conservative bastion of Iowa, their chances of winning the Presidency are squat.) Yes, the media is biased against Paul. I can see that. Doesn't make him right. Like I said yesterday, being brilliant or wrong can have the same effect. As long as you're not lukewarm, you will receive opposition.

Mr. Paul has begun to catch fire and race to the head of the pack. He's currently tied with Romney in Iowa. This doesn't really change anything though. For a number of reasons, Paul will never get the nomination. Paul is at odds with the Republican leadership. They're never gonna give him the nomination. But also, he couldn't win. Ron Paul doesn't have the mass appeal that Mitt Romney could have. Ron Paul is popular with a fiercely loyal circle of people and that's it. For many, he's far too conservative/libertarian. He simply couldn't win. For me, that's a relief.

God Bless,

Stanley

P.S. I'll post later on about the problems that I have with Ron Paul.

Impending Doom

Often, human beings respond better to immediate consequences. A slap on the wrist. Perhaps a spanking? Cause and effect. Yet, a lot of things in life are not composed of immediate consequences. This poses a problem for decision making. We see two options and one may be better overall but the other may be more pleasant, but since it's consequences may be down the road, we choose it. We may choose to sin or to push off responsibilities. The phrase "That'll come back to haunt me," is a sarcastic phrase but it holds so much truth! There is a huge disconnect between an action and a consequence when the two are separated by a period of time. The context in which I'm talking about this is sin. We don't connect sin with the ultimate consequence that we may mentally know, but not live in light of. I am, of course, referring to the Final Judgement. The reason I'm writing this right now is because it's something that I'm struggling with. No, this isn't an outpouring of my soul. However, a spiritual struggle is always an opportunity for our eyes to be opened to a new truth. The Final Judgement always feels like something in the distant future, yet it could be here before I finish typing this post! The Lord tells me keep the oil in my lamp. I do not want to be one of the virgins caught slumbering. My sinful mind struggles to hold the two together. Sin and imminent consequence. Perhaps you'll have better success than I have.

God Bless,

Stanley

Now in Russian!

According to my stats, my biggest following outside of the US is in Russia. As a gesture to those who may be reading in Russia, I have decided to repost my most recent post in Russian. Enjoy! (I hope this goes well.)

Если ничего из этого не имеет смысла, это может быть связано с тем, что я использовал Google Translate для перевода статьи. Я прошу прощения за что-нибудь теряется в переводе.

"Чтобы быть велика, чтобы быть неправильно понята" ~ Ральф Уолдо Эмерсон. (Кто-видимому, связано со мной по крови).

Да, вы, наверное, слышали это. Вы, наверное, смеялся над его как глупо или нарциссическое.Теперь, давайте рассмотрим его. Я всегда говорил, что 95% людей глупы и мелкой. Да, это кажется невероятно высокомерны. Я прошу прощения за это. Это просто теория у меня сложилось после того, постоянно срывались из-за людей в нашем обществе. Честно говоря, у нас слишком много sheople в этом мире, кто предпочел бы быть мелкими и не думать сами за себя. Теперь, если кто-то большой (например, блестящую), 95% людей будут либо (1) все равно, или (2) не понимаю. Это имеет логический смысл. Тем не менее, еще одним вариантом является то, что человек быть неправильно понятым, потому что они сами глупее, чем глупые люди. Это лишний раз показывает, что если вы не поняли что вы не обязательно блестящими. НО, я бы так далеко, чтобы сказать, что он может быть твердым указанием вашего блеска. Короче говоря, я думаю, что это слово, в общем, не выдерживает критики. Я хотел бы подчеркнуть, что я не согласен с этим утверждением по тем же причинам, что г-н Эмерсон делает. Видите ли, Ol 'Ральф был трансцендентный оптимист. Это в значительной степени означает, что он был обожествления природы релятивистских с романтическими представлениями о человеке быть хорошим. Он считал, что вы могли бы сказать что-то верно и сегодня, а затем сказать нечто совершенно иное завтра и в то же противоречивые заявления быть правдой. Таким образом, релятивизм. Истина меняется. Таким образом, блестящие и великие люди, которые понимают это понятие не понимают, потому что они следуют постоянные приливы и отливы истины. Ясно, что это не библейский но это является причиной, Эмерсон сказал, что он сделал. Ни один здравомыслящий человек не может так жить. Таким образом, я не согласен с г-ном Эмерсоном из-философские основания своего требования, но я согласен с утверждением, из-за моей собственной совершенно иной причине.

Боже, благослови,
Стэнли

Постскриптум Не быть частью sheople. Все обдумать. Не следуйте тенденция просто потому что это тенденция. Рассмотрим другие. Просто потому, что что-то не сразу приятным не значит, что не стоит. Изучайте новые вещи. Иметь глубокие разговоры. Мир не о вас

To Be Great Is To Be Misunderstood

"To be great is to be misunderstood" ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson. (Who is apparently related to me by blood.)

Yes, you've probably heard it. You've probably laughed at it as silly or narcissistic. Now, let's consider it. I have always said that 95% of people are stupid and shallow. Yes, this seems incredibly arrogant. I apologize for that. It's simply a theory I have formed after being continually frustrated by the people of our society. Frankly, we have too many sheople in this world who would prefer to be shallow and not think for themselves. Now if someone were great (i.e brilliant), 95% of people would either (1) not care or (2) not understand. This makes logical sense. However, another option is that the person is being misunderstood because they themselves are stupider than the stupid people. This goes to show that if you're misunderstood you're not necessarily brilliant. BUT, I would go so far as to say that it may be a solid indication of your brilliance. In short, I think that this saying, in general, holds water. I would like to point out that I do not agree with this statement for the same reasons that Mr. Emerson does. You see, Ol' Ralph was a transcendental optimist. This largely means he was nature deifying relativist with romantic notions about man being good. He believed that you could say something true today and then say something entirely different tomorrow and yet the contradictory statement be true. Thus, the relativism. Truth is changing. Thus, brilliant and great people who understand this concept are misunderstood because they follow the constant ebb and flow of truth. Clearly, this is not biblical yet this is the reason Emerson said what he did. No sane human being can live like that. Thus, I disagree with Mr. Emerson because of the philosophical grounds of his claim, yet I agree with the claim because of my own entirely different reason.

God Bless,

Stanley

P.S. Don't be part of the sheople. Think things through. Don't follow a trend simply because it's a trend. Consider others. Just because something isn't immediately pleasurable doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile. Learn new things. Have deep conversations. The world isn't about you.

Hear Me, Karma! Oh. Wait.

Per request, this week's post is on the topic of karma. Now, this is a common superstition. It's thrown about frequently albeit generally facetiously. However, since it bears a slight resemblance to Christianity, it may be that Christians can have a hard time defending against this false idea. The concept that good is rewarded and bad is judged is clearly a biblical concept. That much cannot be denied. The ultimate dichotomy between karma and Christianity is the agency. Karma, originating in Eastern Mysticism, is the product of a blind, all encompassing, and transcendent force that guides the universe. This force is often called Brahma. Blessings and curses are administered by this force to doers of good and evil. I struggle with this because I don't understand the eastern mystic's concept of right and wrong. The eastern mystic proclaims that all things are one. One could argue that if all things are one, there are no distinctions such as right and wrong. Despite this, Brahma manages to reward the good and punish the bad without being a personal being. Christians need to fight this idea upon these grounds. The God that Christians worship is not a blind force. Yahweh is a personal and sentient being who creates, loves, and judges. There is an ultimate moral standard we will be judged by on the Final Day, but God is also actively pursuing judgement in this life. A simple example is that bad decision have bad consequences. That is God's practical way of achieving judgement in this world. However, God also weaves much greater and more complicated punishments. These are based upon his creative, personal, and holy nature. We do not and need not always see them, but His holiness demands that they be there. Oddly enough, Christianity is also very different from the concept of Karma because of the Christian concept of mercy. Is a blind force going to experience pity or mercy? It can't. A personal God, such as the one we have, is abounding with mercy and love. The sun shines upon the righteous and the wicked. Christ died to pay for the sins of wicked sinners (Me.) From our God's abounding mercy, we too are enabled to commit acts of mercy. This is an entirely foreign concept to Brahma. It draws no divisions, for there are none.

In short, Karma is a foreign concept from Christianity because it relies upon a far off and impersonal being. Such an identity (if it can be called that) is entirely foreign from our God. Therefore, He administers justice fairly based upon an absolute moral standard and yet His being abounds with mercy too.

God Bless,

Stanley

Mass Murder? Nice Try.

"I don't want a God who would order innocent people to be slaughtered." There's your problem. They aren't innocent.

Have you ever struggled with God's orders to exterminate the people who inhabited The Promised Land before the Israelites? Chapter upon chapter chronicles (pun intended) the destruction of pagan nations. Many modern atheists and liberals have objected to this "barbarism." They raise the same objection written above. "It's not loving. That's cruel." My reply? It's justice. Get over it. So you're going to elevate your mind above the Mind of God and make moral judgements about Him? How dare you be so arrogant! Your finite mind would be annihilated by the vastness of God's knowledge, wisdom, love, and justice.

See, our problem is that we are trying to fit God into our little framework of "fair." God is not bound by human convention or foolishness. You know what He IS bound by? Himself. He is perfectly holy and righteous. That is basic to who He is and He cannot deny His own nature. God's holiness defines morality. We have rebelled against and offended this holy God who defines morality by His very essence. His justice then becomes manifest. His just nature demands a sufficient restitution. What is the proper punishment for offending an eternal God? Eternal punishment of course. Now, the fact that we aren't all burning in hell this very instant is a testament to God's immeasurable grace. But when He decides to withhold His grace and do what is just, we criticize Him for it? God forbid! He giveth and He taketh away. When God decides to righteously bring judgement upon an entire nation, no man can raise objection.

I like to explain our understanding of God in this way. Imagine a small cube. Now, envision a massive vortex spiraling to a single point within the cube. That cube is our finite minds. God has revealed an accurate but condensed version of Himself to us. That is the single point within our minds. The vortex begins to spread from that point, but quickly passes out of our comprehension. That is our understanding of something greater, beyond our comprehension. It is the surety of the entire massive vortex that exists entirely outside of the small cube, that is, God's infinite attributes we can only trust rather than understand.

Another interesting point, is the parallels between the journey of Israel and the journey of the Church. You remember the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness? Perhaps you would consider them sojourners? Exactly. The Bible tell us that we are sojourners in this world. The Israelites were sojourners in the wilderness just as we are sojourners on this earth. When the Israelites entered the Promised Land, the land was purged. This directly parallels God' judgement and purging on the last day. Then, the Israelites' entrance into the Promised Land is a fulfillment of God's promises that directly parallels our entrance into Paradise. Clearly, in the midst of God' righteous bloodshed, there was an even bigger picture plan in store. We can take comfort in the wisdom of our God to plan and the justice of our God to judge.

God Bless,

Stanley

Republican Presidential Race Analysis

I apologize for a prolonged time of silence. School comes first and it muscled it's way into my blog writing time. That time of silence is over.

I finished all my papers and obligations last night and so I flopped down on the couch and stayed up until 11 watching the Republican Presidential Debate. THAT was entertaining. My initial reactions to the debate are that (1) Michelle Bachmann is on the war path (2) Ron Paul's foreign policy is incredibly naive. I stayed up late and watched Bret Baier and Co. asking candidates, Santorum, Perry, Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Huntsman, and Bachmann about issues like economy, leadership, judicial branch, Iran, and also about addressing allegations brought against the candidates. I had a good time. Now, it's the next day and the dust is clearing. Fortunately, the two initial impressions stand firm. Bachmann was on the war path. She called out Gingrich multiple times and came head to head with Ron Paul on Iran. Michelle is fighting for her life there in the Iowa caucus. She means business. She is pushing her ultra conservative views hard. That's going to be her downfall. I'm sure of it.

Ron Paul's views on government regulation and economy are so spot on. This man is a genius. But don't let him anywhere near foreign policy! Don't make Paul Secretary of State or Secretary of War. That wouldn't end well. Secretary of the Treasury? That's more like it. His naive belief that Iran will somehow fit into the Cold War model of mutually assured destruction is absurd. His blind faith in "diplomacy" betrays an underlying misunderstanding of human nature and of the Islamic zeitgeist! Bachmann rightfully called him out on this in no uncertain terms. Sadly, Paul did himself a disservice because his responses were weak and he appeared to be losing his cool.

A nuclear Iran is a global nightmare that is incredibly complex. War is not the automatic answer, but war cannot be ruled out. I feel that we don't understand the ramifications of a nuclear Iran and that leads us to a soft reaction. The Iranian Government (not the people) hates America. Iran hates Israel. Their religion is founded on extermination of infidel and martyrdom of their people. Such a radical regime having access to nuclear weapons is simply not an option. Frankly, Mr. Paul doesn't understand this and he's too biased against war to understand that sometimes the best solution isn't always the prettiest one. Because the Iranians sure aren't going to back down!

Mitt Romney was strangely silent throughout the night. He continually reminded us of his business successes. I think those are important, yes. However, I have observed that he leans very heavily upon saying "learning lessons from success and failure" than actually providing a plan. He's currently combating Newt Gingrich in Iowa and yet Bachmann and others went after Gingrich instead. Mitt was a seasoned veteran who showed restraint but his talking points became old after a while. Don't get me wrong. I feel that Romney is one of the most level-headed and electable candidates in the race. That is, if people can get over the fact that he's a Mormon. Please Christians, get over it and don't be so close minded. He may be a Mormon, but he shares a lot of the same basic values. Certainly, he's not saved, but that doesn't change the fact that, through God's grace, Mitt Romney is, in many major ways, our ideological ally.

My main problem is not his religion, but that he seems a little moderate on some things. He's by no means as ultra conservative as Santorum or Bachmann, nor does he have glaring political errors that have me leery of him. Largely? He's just vanilla on the issues. Yes, he may be pro-life, for true marriage, and supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but I don't think that he puts as much stock in these beliefs as, say, Santorum or Bachmann. I think he's attempting to run on a ticket of getting the country's financial and economic state back on track. That's certainly a smart strategy and it's what American needs! However, if he's going to emphasize economy over social issues, he needs to be the clear choice in that category and I'm unconvinced that he is.

Santorum was also strong on conservative principles, but you could tell he clearly wanted to say more than he was allowed. Frankly, Santorum isn't going to win this. Not enough Republicans like him and he is hated by liberals as a homophobe and racist. That is just a losing combination. I feel that Bachmann largely follows this formula. She is ultra-conservative and is thus hated. I suggest searching Bachmann on YouTube to see the ire that she has aroused in many people in the country. She has become an easy political punching bag. I am 100% sure that neither Bachmann nor Santorum will receive the Republican Nomination nor could they possibly win the presidency.

Gingrich will kill the Republican party's chance of winning this election. This election is almost being handed to us because of how badly Mr. Obama has performed, but we can still lose it with a poor candidate! Mr. Gingrich's electability is so bad, I don't see why so many Republicans like him. They are going to shoot their election chances in the foot. He's been around too long. There is too much dirt to dig up. Plus, his name is Newt! Now, we have to look at this from a purely aesthetic point of view. Is it close minded of me to think that I don't want a president with the first name Newt? Just think of the international mockery. I'm sorry, Mr. Gingrich. It's not shallow. It's pragmatism. To me, Newt is a career politician and he's not a good choice for this country. He's simply been part of the problem for too long.

I was actually impressed with Rick Perry's performance. I was afraid he was going to be some ultra conservative hick, but he comes of as an accomplished and experienced man who knows what he's talking about. His real strong conservatism will prevent him from winning, but I would certainly vote for him over Bachmann or Santorum. From what I've heard and seen, he has improved greatly from the last debate. Apparently he's not much of a debater and that's apparent in the clips I've seen from the last debate. However, he certainly has improved and he impressed me.

At this point, I am endorsing Jon Huntsman for President. Jon Huntsman exudes confidence, experience, knowledge, and wittiness. Mr. Huntsman has a fantastic track record as governor of Utah (yes he's a Mormon.) He lowered taxes, abolished regulation, and improved business in his state. What he did with Utah, he can do with this country! It's fantastic to see a man who has a vision and yet we can look at his track record and see that his vision is something that is successful and works. Another fantastic skill he brings to the table is his position of US ambassador to China for many years. He understands how to deal with this incredibly complex and important foreign country. That is such a valuable and unique skill!

Mr. Huntsman puts a large emphasis on the economy and deregulation. In this election, that is the biggest issue. Social issues take back seat. Yes, he's pro-life (However, my quibble with him is his exceptions in case of rape or threat to mother's life. Even then, that is an incredibly delicate issue.) He believes that homosexuality is wrong though he wants to reduce discrimination and is for homosexual unions. He's largely consistent with my beliefs in that regard. I'm not happy with his acceptance of evolution and global warming, however throughout his campaign, he has made it abundantly clear that these are not the things he is seeking to focus on. For me, him believing evolution is a side comment. This man has the leadership skills, the experience, the know-how, and the professional attitude to lead this country where it needs to go. That's why I'm endorsing Jon Huntsman. I hope you'll do your research and made an informed decision. Maybe, you'll even come to the same conclusion as me. I can't vote yet, but I want to sway the opinion of those who can!

God Bless,

Stanley

P.S. I have a ton of material that I have been working on in fragments. There is more to come throughout the week!

A Brief Defense of the Indefensible

Christians need to stand by the Puritans. As non-Christians hate them and laugh them to scorn, we need to defend them. Admittedly, not everything they did was praiseworthy. However, ultimately, we need to stand by their fundamental attitudes and beliefs. When pagans denounce Puritans and their "prudery" or "tyrannical morals", they are really rejecting an absolute standard of morality! Stop and think this through with me. The Puritans had the Word of God and they knew exactly what He had told them concerning how to live. God had laid out an absolute moral code. The Puritans took sin very gravely. This is fantastic on their part! Sin is serious! The world wants a Law that is flippant and bends to their whims. That is not the Law that the Puritans would adhere to. They would not waver. For this allegiance, they are hated. Christ said this would come. He said that we would be blessed if we were hated for his sake. Ultimately, we need to stand by the Puritans' strong stance on an absolute morality that is established by a Holy God. It does not bow to our wishes.

God Bless,

Stanley

AJSUFHNGYQIODKMCNDHGYU!

The topic that I spent the day reading about was that of speaking in tongues. I read an article where a supporter of speaking in tongues brought his arguments for it and attempted to deflect arguments against it. Frankly, while it was a well intentioned attempt, he fell flat in many respects. His assertion that tongues can be a spiritual language was founded on two passages and one of which, does not support his claim. The other one is shaky at best in supporting his claims. It felt lacking and full of bashing the other side as opposed to proving himself. However, after reading some good stuff about cessationism (the opposite side of the argument) I was still unsure. The ultimate problem that I have with cessationist theology is that I just haven't found a sufficiently strong logical basis for it! My titles asks, is the foundation of cessationism as sure as we think it is? Looking at the scriptures, I don't think it's as set in stone as we think it is. Both sides still have left me unconvinced.

I spent a lot of time reading 1 Corinthians 14. It's an incredible passage and frankly, it's confusing in light of cessationist theology. Am I to believe that this passage merely no longer applies? I am at a crossroads. Where I currently stand, is here: what is commonly thought of as tongues is not tongues. Confusing? I'll explain.

Let's take a look at Corinthians 14...

¹Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

²For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

³But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

⁴He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

⁵I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

⁶Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

⁷And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?

⁸For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

⁹So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

¹⁰There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.

¹¹Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

¹²Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

¹³Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

¹⁴For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

¹⁵What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

¹⁶Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

¹⁷For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

¹⁸I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

¹⁹Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

²⁰Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

²¹In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

²²Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

²³If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

²⁴But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:

²⁵And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

²⁶How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

²⁷If 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.

²⁸But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

²⁹Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

³⁰If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.

³¹For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

³²And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

³³For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

³⁴Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

³⁵And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

³⁶What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

³⁷If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

³⁸But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

³⁹Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

⁴⁰Let all things be done decently and in order.

Let's look at this in context. What is Paul saying about tongues? He says that tongues are to be translated! If they are not translated, you are speaking into the air and it profits no one. The gibberish that passes for tongues now a days cannot be translated! If it could be and it was, then churches practicing speaking in tongues would be in accordance with this passage. Clearly, that is not happening. Now, if we view tongues as a foreign but real language. Then this passage begins to make sense. At Pentecost, tongues was mentioned. Yet, in that instance, those tongues were foreign languages. This is how tongues appears throughout the NT. It appears to me that tongues are not gibberish. (which even pagan religions practiced before Christians.) God is a God of communication and order. He does not sow chaos. Corinthians 14 provides a clear guide for how tongues are to be practiced, yet the church is not adhering to this passage. Regardless of whether cessationism is correct of not, the church is not following the guidelines that the Bible lays out to practice speaking in tongues. This needs to be corrected .

I will continue to read about cessationism. Many men I respect and look up to hold to this view. There must be something to it. I did find a fantastic article by Mark Snoeberger on this topic. It's well written and extremely helpful. Over the next week, I am going to re-read it and analyze it. I'll get back to you on it. As a side note, I recommend reading the article titled "Tongues - Are They for Today?" (http://ccggrockford.org/wp-content/uploads/Snoeberger%20-%20Tongues.pdf) and I also recommend Mr. Snoeberger's blog. (I'm putting it in my links.)

God Bless,

Stanley