Leaderboard

I don't have a lot invested into this "logical fallacy" idea. I think waysider was the one that brought that up. I think the whole idea of "logical fallacy" is basically to try and work towards the scientific method where you have a hypothesis, then scientific methods to prove or disprove that hypothesis. By nature there has to be a hypothesis to test. In this case the hypothesis could equally be "All people claiming to SIT are faking it", or "SIT is a genuine language from God" (at least in the most general sense of defining the hypothesis). I think more our debate has just been discussing the topic. I don't really think either side introduced the idea as you state from a general presence perspective. You were sharing a perspective and took a poll. The poll is about exactly divided, which fuels into the debate. I think all the logical fallacy stuff is extraneous static and is just an intellectual way to call someone a name.

This is my last post on the matter or the thread. Challenge someone's perspective and boy it gets ugly. Yet, all I read on other threads is how great it is to have critical thinking skills now and gee it is great to be able to question. It is so hypocritical it is laughable. I guess even considering that there actually IS continuity throughout Acts concerning speaking in tongues is right out the window. You just dismissed a very accepted and widely understood exegesis as "my interpretation" as if that explained it away. A caviler dismissal of the obvious in favor of a perspective that supports your cherished understanding is no way to look at the scriptures, but it is a really common exegetical fallacy. You bite so easily. But, maybe you are wrong. There really are compelling reasons to believe that people did hear and understand what was being said in the other accounts besides Pentecost. If you would just lose that edge maybe we could look at some of them and nicely consider for a minute. I believe exactly what I said....those other accounts reveal those hearing did understand what was being said. I think we have to read into it to see otherwise. Language is for communication, obviously your dismissal of me as uninformed was trying to communicate something to me. I will pretend I didn't understand and you were just SIT. I know the Pentecostal definition for speaking in tongues.....I once believed it. Speaking to God mysterious utterances in a secret and private prayer language. Got it. I just don't think scripture supports it. And yes, I actually had to look at scripture to see this. If you want to believe that when tongues is used in scripture it is used to convey some mysterious and special prayer language....go ahead. Is that what is means? Then that must be exactly how the Greeks would have understood that phrase SIT. Right? We might have to ignore the Septuagint where it is used for regular human languages....but whatever.Why should its first use or where it is used in Job, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah. Esther, or Nehemiah matter to us? Although the accounts we do have were not some private prayer examples, but rather public testimony.....it shouldn't bother us. A biblical testimony is in there to ignore. The first account, which establishes it as a known human language, doesn't have to mean anything if we won't let it mean something. Unless of course, we are meant to lean on that for understanding in the subsequent accounts, then we have a problem. There were 14 different groups identified on Pentecost as hearing and understanding their specific dialect. Hard to ignore. Now, we have to make a leap if we are going to assume that SIT is anything other than a known human language. We have to start reading into Paul's intent in Corinthians....we must ignore hyperbole, tone, and correction. To assume Paul is advocating the private use of tongues, we would have to ignore his criticism elsewhere, really throughout the entire letter. The majority of what he writes in 1 Corinthians is negative because tongues is a problematic and pride filled gift. Yet, we are to assume he is suddenly advocating its private use after painstakingly explaining the negative connotations concerning self gratification? I don't think so, not unless he is manic. We also have to ignore Peter's visit to the gentiles. With Cornelius they were heard to be exalting God in tongues. Someone there understood what was being said or they wouldn't have known they were exalting God. Lucky guess? Assumption? Luke uses the same expression as Acts 2 where they were speaking known languages. If it was different, we are not clued in by Luke's choice of language. Language is for communication. Peter's defense of that mission also tells us . . . . they had received the Holy Spirit just as the Apostles had. He goes on to explain more.....As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. . . . . . So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God's way. Color me uniformed on details, but it seems to me that Luke and Peter are going out of there way to draw parallels between the two events, not distance. It seems to me, one would have to ignore the obvious and blatant continuity to favor anything remotely like a one time event where the languages spoken and understood are a rare phenomenon. Silly me, I take these accounts into the reading of 1 Corinthians and amazingly my perspective allows for tone, hyperbole, and correction. New eyes to see those verses in Corinthians. That can't possibly be the reason they are in there can it? The Holy Spirit means empowerment.....for what purpose? Who or what is the focus on? Basic questions and details that must be considered when reading about gifts. Are we built up through the body or as a lone ranger? Are gifts distributed for the individual or are they for the edification of the body and then we in turn are edified by the whole? Is the empowerment of the Holy Spirit for empowerment to minister to others or some mystical way to build ourselves up? If it wasn't a known language and a sign for those who didn't believe and the purpose is self, private and merely some mysterious utterances......then we can throw out the rest of scripture and ignore all the wonderful things we should understand about one body, diversity within unity, and even what it means to pray.