I don't know if that all took, but (is it just me) or is this guy having to really strain at finding things wrong with President Bush?
"Does the leader of the free world need to attain that level of physical achievement? Bush not only thinks so, he thinks it goes for the rest of us as well. In 2002, he initiated a national fitness campaign."
Oh, for Pete's sake! When I was in high school (and it was before the days of Bush the first) there was a presidential fitness campaign.
"The notion of a connection between physical and mental potency is, of course, silly.
Where has this guy been? Men's fitness (May, 2002) says, "In a study at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, people who ran on a treadmill for 30 minutes prior to taking a computer test did better on the test than those who did no pretest exercise, and brainwave measurements showed that their decision-making speed had increased."
I understand liberals (and even some conservatives) having problems with some of the things Mr. Bush does - but exercise? Come on...
I should have noted right off the bat that I do not agree with Mr. Courson!
The internal debate I have on the gift of tongues is (at this moment) triggered by a dillema that my dad is facing. My mom and dad attend a small, rural Missionary church in the thumb of Michigan and their pastor is "going all Pentacostal" on them.
I have so much respect for my dad, who is a great man of God, with a very quiet, rock hard faith. He doesn't always speak up, but when he does, you have better be listening because you know this is something that he has pondered long and hard.
And he is preparing to speak up in his church on this issue.
The sermon that I posted about (I believe) takes the Pentacostal stance on the gift of tongues to its logical conclusion (the sign of the New Covenant is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the initial evidence of which is speaking in tongues). I believe this is wrong.
I'm not sure where I stand on the gift of tongues. Some will say that it disappeared with the closing of the Canon. Others will say that it disappeared before that - the only places the mention of tongues appears is very early on, chronologically. Others will say that it *is* for today, as used by Pentacostals. Still others will say that the gift of tongues is for today, but as Paul wrote, can be abused - and the typical Pentacostal church abuses the gift; Paul gave us guidelines and we should use them.
Every side will have back up, either logical or Scriptural (or both). What I know is that tongues is not the determining factor in whether or not we are "sealed", or whether or not we have the Holy Spirit (or are baptized in the Holy Spirit).