waysider

HERE

I'm glad it's still free. I don't buy much of anything without a senior discount.

Erase or eradicate any value to it? I believe that's pushing the issue a bit too far. People may very well perceive value in it. I know many do. I have no desire to erase or eradicate that for them. What's being done here is to question its validity not its value. "Show some enthusiasm (from the Greek, in Theos, meaning "in the oss")." Lord have mercy! You owe me a keyboard. (This one wasn't spew proof.)

I would argue that it matters a GREAT deal. If the incident is to be interpreted as being figurative, it doesn't matter if it was "said", interpretively danced, conveyed by smoke signal or issued by flag semaphore. If the incident didn't literally, historically take place, it's a completely moot point. My contention is that it is figurative in nature and not a recording of an actual, historical event. As such, there is no precedent being set.

I see two potential problems with this question. First, (and, this is a big one.) it presupposes the incident literally took place. Do you believe this or do you believe it to be figurative? Second, it veers too far from the topic at hand, in my opinion.

"Building up brothers and sisters with intent is better." Exactly. Christian, Non-Christian, this thing, that thing or the other thing. Isn't that what makes this world a little more bearable place to live in? Treat people with respect and equality to the best of your ability. That can be quite a task in itself sometimes. It's a lesson that was sorely missing from the teachings I was exposed to in The Way.

Bingo!! Hence, the introduction of time demarcations (administrations/dispensations), spiritual understanding vs. carnal understanding and "to whom it's written" become tools for squeezing square pegs into round holes.

Language is the ability to acquire and use complex systems of communication, particularly the human ability to do so, and a language is any specific example of such a system. The scientific study of language is called linguistics. Let's be honest here. We're not really talking about whistles and groans and grunts that whales and elephants make or the elaborate mating dance of the Wicky Wacky Hooky Hacky Bird. And, we're not talking about fortran, java, basic or any other computer languages. We're talking about speaking in tongues and the languages of human beings. Toss the languages of angels into the mix if you feel you really must. "True or false. Glossolalia can or might be an authentic form of communication." Surprisingly, the answer to that is true. Body language, facial expressions, pitch and volume modulation can all be considered types of communication. Do they, in and of themselves constitute language? No. Communication, yes. Language, no. All known human languages (yeah, I know, there's the angel thing, too.) follow complex systems, formats, syntax. Some of these systems are as different as night is from day. For example, in English, the verb can be positioned at various places within a sentence, while in one particular Asian language I have a glancing experience with, the verb always appears at the end of the sentence and articles are nonexistent. Lots of other profound differences as well. Point being, although they are vastly different, they both represent complex systems that follow definitive formats. Speaking in tongues does not do that. To prove the validity of speaking in tongues, you don't have to identify the specific language being spoken. You merely have to demonstrate that it meets the defining criteria for language. You have to show that it goes beyond unstructured (though usually quite convincing) utterances.

Like eavesdropping on a bunch of kids, trying to convince each other Santa Claus is real.

I liked The Vatican Rag. "It's got a good beat and it's easy to dance to." I give it about a 73.

Steve This is a bit of a straw man. I never suggested anything that involved altered states of consciousness or drugs or whatever. In addition, you're asking that I "produce a proper historical citation that genuine, Biblical speaking in tongues, the non-ecstatic type, predates Christianity.") Without first defining "genuinely, Biblical speaking in tongues", that task is not possible.

"Since the communication being done in SIT is between God (I Corinthians 14:2) and the Holy Spirit, human language... or the lack of one... doesn't make any difference at all." Well, I guess that settles it then. Speaking in tongues doesn't have to conform to linguistic standards because......it's spiritual. Now, wasn't that easy? It does say, however, that when they spoke in tongues in Acts 2, people understood them. That suggests to me that their vocalizations must have had some sort of systematic arrangement that was understood by the hearers.

When it's referred to in the Bible, it's in the sense of speaking, of being a language, not merely a communication. Communication and language are not necessarily synonymous. Yes, animals communicate, sometimes through sounds, sometimes through posturing, sometimes through pheromones, sometimes by altering physical surroundings. Loosely speaking, some might refer to that as language. It's not, it's communication. Among the many ways that humans communicate, one of them is speech. Speech has regimented structure, framework, syntax. Speaking in tongues (as we know it from our time in The Way) does not. We can, whether consciously or not, control it in such a manner as to make it APPEAR to be systematically structured. Christians are not the only ones or even the originators of said activity. The type of speaking in tongues being observed today (glossolalia) predates Christianity and is practiced by groups that are decidedly non-Christian. Maybe there really is such a thing as genuine speaking in tongues. I don't know. I would think, however, that most Christian people would opt for the genuine, rather than the pseudo version if, indeed, it were available, rather than resist the obvious.

It just occurred to me that by inserting the letter "n" in the third position we would be creating an Age of Porcine, as well.

Spec While I don't necessarily agree with all the points you're presenting, I do appreciate the thoughtful way in which you're presenting them.

If there was a real place called GreaseSpot Cafe, it would probably have a big neon sign in the front window, flashing brightly, proclaiming this message.

Well, whatever language VPW's "tongue" was, it never seemed to change. Maybe the message was just so powerful it had to be repeated over and over and over again. Lo Shanta La Maka See Tay!

You got my vote.

"Ooh, book idea. Plagiarize the way books whole sale. Just word for word. Instead of crediting VPW or whoever, credit the original authors. I wonder if twi would try to take any legal action, and if so, if it would hold up. I know, a great big, who cares? but the irony appeals to me" .................................................................................. The Way books are protected by copyright. Go figure. So much for the "Oh, it's from God so it should belong to everyone." mantra.

Oh, my! What a loving, caring individual VPW must have been. (You know he wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?)

"Given that it produces the same intended effect or benefits (if it does), is proof enough of the authenticity or "realness" of it." Except it doesn't. If it did, it would be easy to authenticate. In fact, when coupled with the bogus law of believing (camera analogy from The Bible Tells Me So), it can have gravely damaging effects. Case in point: People have tried to use this method to resolve complex, serious issues while ignoring proven methods of intervention. Some paid dearly. Some even died. So, when people tell me it couldn't hurt, my response would be that the outcome is relative to the situation. edit: grammar

Yes, I can see that now. I really must speak in tongues more. Where, oh where, was my believing?

Confounding the wise........It's the loving thing to do.

"Debate is combative" Debate is not a combative endeavour. It would be more accurate for you to say you perceive it to be combative. Perception and reality do not always agree. "So, for any that claim or seem to think that they have really escaped from the "unable to think outside the box" syndrome that is generally attributed here to TWI... TWI wasn't and isn't the only place were such boxes exist." You are correct in noting TWI is not the only place such boxes exist. However, this forum is concerned with TWI, in particular, not those other places. Can we return to topic now?

Thank you, shortfuse. Time and time again, people come here and try to minimize the gravity of Wierwille's plagiarism. "Oh, well, at least he got us to read the Bible", or "Yes, but I spoke in tongues.", etc. In a sense, his plagiarism was far worse than the average variety where a song or book or paper is plagiarized. Not only did he claim the work was his own, he claimed his work was the result of a special divine, connection. What he did was seriously wrong on multiple levels. And, he was aware that he was doing it. Adding to that, a good deal of what he promoted has been debunked as being inaccurate. Where is the value in that?