---

Reply to : EpiskopeoHey again, "I Bish".Yes, certainly has helped. Have questioned them in RF a lot, but have let much slip by. I use Episkopeo as "to look/examine" not so much Bishop. Correct me on that one if you wish.I know, but I call you "I Bish" tongue-in-cheek, given that you've chosen averbas your nom-de-plume rather than anounThere is another query. I know it will seem like the "old, old story" but it's tongues again. Apart from Pentecost, when like a wind fanning a fire, the word went out to a large number, what exactly is the purpose of tongues?It depends. On whether you're considering the 'sign of languages' that we find in Acts, or the altogetherdifferent'gift of tongues' that Paul describes in 1 Co

---

A rather basic question, but when receiving the Holy Spirit as evidenced by tongues is excluded, surely they need not even be present after the first apostles.

'Yep'

'sigh' old num-nut brolga here.

Ian, do you mean 'Yep' they need not even be present after the first apostles, or 'Yep'  they are?

---

Reply to : brolgaRalph, good morning.Ian, do you mean 'Yep' they need not even be present after the first apostles, or 'Yep' they are?What I meant was there wasnorequirement for the Acts 'sign of languages' being presentafterthe passing of the first apostles. According to Paul the valid (Corinthian), but remarkably insignificant, gift of 'tongues'; however, will continue until the Parousia. So too, I've no doubt, will the mostlyinvalidRevivalist version Blessings,Ian

---

Thanks once again.

FWW. I have just finished listening to a talk I had recorded whilst in RCI Bellarine some five years ago. It is by "Pastor" John Andrews and is a "salvation" message. It really covers the host of what Revivalist teaching and doctrine stands for, and what we speak out against now, in the light of biblical truth.  He talks about how other churches have compromised the Gospel, even to the point "they need to be shot". In the thirty minute talk, tongues was mentioned 48 times and he stated that God was the "God of  Tongues"

It is a very convincing talk and for any new to this, would be easily mislead into believing the great lie, as many have and still do, but it does give one the insight of the spiritual abuse that is taking place when one has gained a little knowlege of Biblical truth.

brolga 

Hello Didaktikon,

Your contributions here are appreciated, thanks.   Interest in class action still remains amongst members of the GRC forum, I am wondering what your thoughts would be in regards to this.

I found the following definition of religious intolerance after 'googling' "class action against religious organisations", (admittedly this is from Wikip.  ..raising an eyebrow)

Religious intolerance is either intolerance motivated by one's own religious beliefs or intolerance against another's religious beliefs                 practices. It manifests both at a cultural level, but may also be a formal part of the dogma of particular religious groups.

The mere statement on the part of a religion that its own beliefs and practices are correct and any contrary beliefs incorrect does not in itself constitute intolerance. There are many cases throughout history of established religions tolerating other practices. Religious intolerance, rather, is when a group (a society, a religious group) specifically refuses to tolerate practices, persons or beliefs on religious grounds...

Do you may have information regarding the 'rules'  that dictate how religious groups can go on preaching when it is obvious that they use mind-control techniques.   Does pursuing a class action over claims of mind control and manipulation then place 'us' in the category of being religion-intolerant, and what are the implications? 

Somewhat new to the forum, should this be in another thread? 

wft.

---

Reply to : Sure. In a 'nutshell', the Australian Constitution protects the right of individuals and groups to exercise religious freedom, and the freedom to express their beliefs.

---

Thank you, 

'religious freedom', sounds rather ironic.