Father Jack Ashcraft addresses the question here. Excerpt:
The logical starting point for understanding this issue is Acts 2: 1-21. Here we have the first recorded account of the gift of tongues in the church. Previous to this event, Christ had told his disciples that they would be the recipients of supernatural assistance after His resurrection and ascension. (John 14:16-17) This assistance would be the direct indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Acts 1:4 tells us they were told to wait in Jerusalem for this special moment. The day finally arrived on Pentecost, 50 days after the resurrection. The Holy Spirit descended upon them and there was an amazing manifestation of His presence. (Acts 2:2-4) Scripture tells us there was a sound like a mighty wind, and flames divided and rested upon each of the twelve apostles and 120 disciples. “And they were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (Acts 2:4) Contextually we find nothing in the subsequent history recorded in Acts of this event that would at all lend itself to the idea that this was some mystical “prayer language”- the incoherent babbling witnessed in Charismatic churches. Acts 2:5-6 is very clear that the foreigners present all heard these faithful disciples speaking in their own languages. In other words, the contextual evidence is that the apostles and disciples were speaking very real earthly languages, which they had not studied or spoken prior to this event. No incoherent babbling, no falling on the floor and writhing, no shouting or animal noises, just clear earthly languages.
There’s more here, I encourage you to read it all. I should point out that Father Jack is Anglican, i.e., Catholic lite, not Catholic per se, but I find a lot of his stuff to be solid. If I remember correctly, he even said on Twitter a while back that he’s been strongly influenced by Thomism and Scholasticism, more so than he had long thought. Not a coincidence then!
In any case, he goes on to argue that 1 Corinthians 13:1 still does not support the Charismatic understanding of tongues in Scripture, quotes from some Church Fathers to bolster the case that “tongues” always refers to “earthly languages,” and questions whether the Charismatic practice of speaking in tongues is spiritually sound. It’s funny that sects like the Charismatics accuse Catholics of being “unbiblical,” but it sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
So there’s something going down in Richmond, Virginia, tomorrow that you’ve probably heard about. It’s a gun rights rally that’ll purport to draw tens of thousands of people. Some are claiming it’ll be the next Charlottesville, others aren’t quite so dramatic.
I’m in the latter camp. I don’t think anything terrible will happen, maybe some minor skirmishes at most, such as if certain individuals or groups refuse to disarm. The governor has declared a state of emergency and will not allow the attendees to bring firearms. I don’t have a strong opinion about whether that’s right or wrong, but it’d be wise for attendees to just follow the law and have their peaceful demonstration. No one benefits but the left if conflict or violence were to take place.
Other reasons I’m not one to worry about Richmond becoming Charlottesville:
- The former and the latter are or were concerned with entirely different political matters.
- There’s much less of a chance that agitators will cause trouble (there’s actually an antifa group who says they’ll march with the pro-gun protesters!). This ties in with #1, because it’s significantly easier to paint all Charlottesville protesters as Nazis and white supremacists than it is to do so for all pro-2nd Amendment protesters. Factors in Charlottesville becoming a shitshow were a large presence of hostile antifa, the incompetence of the authorities in handling logistics and security, and the police standing down as violence broke out. I think everyone has (hopefully) learned from that debacle.
- Gun rights supporters are very law-abiding, so it wouldn’t surprise me if nearly everyone follows Governor Northam’s order not to bring firearms.
- Gun rights supporters have a lot to lose and gun control supporters a lot to win if serious trouble breaks out. This doesn’t mean I think there’ll be false flags, but that the protesters have every incentive to be on their best behavior.
If you’re attending, please be careful, don’t do anything stupid, don’t break the law, and always leave yourself an out. I’ll be following it on the news, and I pray I won’t have to blog about any serious happenings.
I’ve posted about a specific instance of this phenomenon before, and now the FBI is confirming that Saudi Arabia “almost certainly” helps Saudi nationals flee the US after committing serious crimes:
Most of the document is redacted, but the FBI said the Saudi government “undermines the U.S. judicial process” by assisting with the escape of citizens accused of offenses ranging from traffic violations to more serious felonies like “rape, child pornography, and manslaughter.”
It said it made the assessment of the issue with “high confidence.”
The Saudi government does this, the FBI claimed, to avoid the embarrassment of “Saudi citizens enduring the U.S. judicial process” and is not likely to change the practice without pressure from the U.S.
Really makes you think…
#TargetTori has been trending on Twitter since yesterday, and in case you haven’t been following, Tori is a manager at a Massachusetts Target who had the unfortunate luck of dealing with David Leavitt:
Wow. And believe it or not there are more tweets in that thread, so click on one of the embedded ones above to see them all.
You might also notice that David is an “award-winning multimedia journalist” who has been published in CBS, Yahoo, Examiner, and others. A journalist? Being a buzzkill? Trying to humiliate a normal person doing her job? Color me shocked! Also notice that he has kept all these tweets up; he lacks so much self-awareness that he probably still thinks there’s nothing wrong or unusual with making a fuss and calling the police over a mistaken price tag. He thinks he’s being clever by trying to demonstrate his thorough knowledge of Massachusetts pricing laws, but in reality he looks like a complete fool. #TargetTori’s face says it all:
If you want to help send #TargetTori on a much-needed vacation, go here.
Our wise media overlords are at it again, this time with an NBC News article by Noah Berlatsky titled “Trump voters motivated by racism may be violating the Constitution. Can they be stopped?” Excerpt:
Some politicians deny the evidence, no doubt because they don’t want to alienate white voters, including prejudiced ones. Other commentators try to parse whether Trump’s racism will be a winning strategy in 2020. Terry Smith, a visiting professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, offers a different response in his new book, “Whitelash: Unmasking White Grievance at the Ballot Box.” Rather than excuse racist voters or try to figure out how to live with their choices, he argues that racist voting is not just immoral, but illegal. The government, Smith says, has the ability, and the responsibility, to address it.
This sounds radical. But Smith argues that it’s in line with the Constitution and with years of court rulings. For example, Smith points out that racist appeals in union elections are illegal and that an election in which one side uses racist appeals can be invalidated by the National Labor Relations Board. Similarly, in the 2016 case Peña v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court ruled that when a juror expresses overt bigotry, the jury’s verdict should be invalidated.
More here, if you can make it to the end. The scary part is some people actually take this nonsense seriously. And by Berlatsky’s logic, almost every president that Americans have ever put into office would have to be of dubious constitutionality.
On a related note, more than 8 in 10 blacks have described Trump as racist. So much for #Blexit and a repeated touting of “record low African American unemployment!”
I’m sure you’ve heard about this, but I’ll still post it here:
New York City’s sanctuary city policy is again under fire after an illegal immigrant, who was released from NYPD custody in November despite a plea from federal immigration officials to hold him, is alleged to have gone on to sexually assault and murder a 92-year-old woman.
“There has been a complete breakdown of law & order in New York City,” Acting Department of Homeland Security Chad Wolf tweeted Wednesday. “NYC proudly passed sanctuary city laws & bragged about it for months. But now they, & more importantly, the citizens of NYC are facing the deadly consequences of the sanctuary policies.”
The illegal invader is from Guyana, all the way down in South America. More here, including the totally believable explanation he gave to detectives:
Reeaz Khan … is accused of attacking Maria Fuertes as she walked home on Jan. 6. Fuertes lay half-dressed in 32-degree weather, conscious but “incoherent” at 2 a.m. She was taken to a hospital, where she died from injuries that included a broken spine, according to The New York Post.
Khan was arrested and reportedly told detectives that he found Fuertes lying on the ground and was trying to help when he “fell down, his belt broke, his pants fell down and his penis fell near her vagina.”
Well, but “we’re all God’s children” and he has a “spark of divinity” too, right?
In all seriousness, a normal, healthy society would not tolerate or even consider the idea of a “sanctuary city.” That almost goes without saying. But we live in clown world, so anything is up for consideration and implementation.
Marine Le Pen will run for president again in the 2022 French elections:
The far-right leader of the National Rally party said she had reflected on the decision but wanted to “unite French people”.
Le Pen made it to the second round of the French presidential election in 2017 but lost to incumbent Emmanuel Macron. She received just 34% of the vote in the second-round run-off.
Speaking to the press, she emphasised her “will to win”.
“If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” Cliche, yes, but hopefully she can claim the prize this time around.
A couple excerpts from an op-ed in a local Michigan paper by someone I know, Brandon Hall:
First of all, what happened to the “whistleblower” who started this whole circus? Perhaps the fact that, if he is who he has been reported to be, he worked for the CIA, as well as multiple Democrat politicians, including Joe Biden.
Let me tell you about real whistleblowers: We know their names. They sacrifice. They’re people like Edward Snowden, Chelsea (Bradley) Manning, Julian Assange.
Democrats have cheapened what it really means to be a whistleblower, and it’s absolutely appalling.
Interestingly enough, polls show the impeachment is actually helping President Trump. According to a Gallup poll released the week he was impeached, the president’s approval rating is up 6 percent since the start of House proceedings, 45 percent with room to grow.
Even Democrats are getting sick of the impeachment circus. According to a CNN poll, support among Dems for impeaching the president has fallen from 90 percent in September to just 77 percent in late December. Yes, a CNN poll!
Make no mistake: This impeachment hoax has nothing to do with Ukraine.
Rep. Al Green said that “we need to impeach him or he will be re-elected,” and radical Rep. Rashida Tlaib shrieked that we need to “impeach the mother f—er” long before any phone call with Ukraine.
Read it all here. It’s his first column for that paper as well. I think it’s quite good! Keep writing, Brandon!
One of CNN’s most prominent pundits is not confident that any of the Democratic candidates could win the White House from Trump:
CNN’s Van Jones tonight said he was dispirited by the Democratic debate and that nothing he saw from any of the candidates looked like any of them could beat President Donald Trump.
Jones offered words of praise of Elizabeth Warren, saying “she made the case that women have been winning in the Trump era.”
However, his overall assessment of debate was not as positive:
“As a progressive, to see those two [Warren and Sanders] have that level of vitriol was very dispiriting. And I want to say that tonight for me was dispiriting. Democrats got to do better than what we saw tonight. There was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out, and I want to see a Democrat in the White House as soon as possible.
A moment of raw honesty. We’ve got a long way to go, but I would bet on a Trump reelection. First, the Democrats have failed to trot out any candidates that are both a) solid and b) have a chance of winning. Second, Trump doesn’t suffer from any more “negatives” in terms of style, temperament, and character, that he already possessed as a candidate, and he arguably has more positives now that he has experience in office (disregarding a few of the ways in which his actions, policies, and promises could’ve been better or better upheld). Incumbents are difficult to beat as it is, and Trump has a lot on his side right now, significantly more than some rabid leftists think he does.