waysider

I think once you accept that the Bible is not all God inspired, doesn't fit like a hand in a glove and doesn't necessarily depict historical events in an accurate manner, it all becomes easier to understand.

Thinking about it a bit more, it occurs to me that the likeminded exercises, such as retemory cards, may have increased our sense of commitment by way of self induced reinforcement.

"see things the way we see it." Yes, that's a luxury that came at a price in The Way. All that "likeminded" talk was counterproductive to independent thinking and honest enquiry.

I never criticized Allan, I said I disagreed with his assessment. That's why I included "in my opinion". I also disagreed with the comparison being made to the brook incident because it's incongruous. The region of the brook was known to be fertile and plentiful with water in season and dry in the off season. That's a whole different scenario than what was experienced by many in The Way. It's not a valid comparison.

Rabbi drowns iphone to eliminate spiritual dangers: http://www.thejc.com/news/israel-news/129891/top-rabbi-drowns-iphone

And that's fine. We all see life through a slightly different lens than the next person..

Except that, in my opinion, The Way was never the best place for anyone. It was a cult, built on plagiarized works and the ego of VPW. It was already "dried up" when we got there.

......or to escape becoming a grease spot by midnight.

I think I was the one who challenged the premise. I apologize. It just seemed rather pointless to me that God would get you into something, only to have to get you back out. You know, all that stuff about foreknowledge and whatnot. Seems like a better plan could have been found that didn't include all the unnecessary nonsense. Anyway, if it's stories you want, I'll try to put mine together. I don't get as much computer time as I used to so it might be a while.

Why would God get you into something and then get you out of it?

"A cult is a religion whose founder is still alive." The last time I checked, L.Ron Hubbard was still dead.

I cringe when people use "cult" and "obsession" interchangeably. Take, for example, Rocky Horror Picture Show. It's not a cult film, it's a film that caters to an obsessive social experience. Those are two totally different things.

I personally don't like equating cults with religious beliefs. There are plenty of cults, past and present, that have nothing to do with religious beliefs. Think about how any hardcore biker "club" operates to interpret my meaning.

As my mother was fond of saying, "You kids fight nice!"

I still want to know what constitutes "genuine".

This is the section of the original post I've been attempting to address: "So one of the results of writing this paper is that I've redefined the primary function; the primary function of speaking in tongues is to enable a Christian to offer perfectly acceptable thanksgiving to God even though our minds are still contaminated with hypocrisy. This is possible because the Spirit, instead of our unregenerate minds, gives us the words to speak." I'm not sure how else to proceed without veering off topic so I think I'll bow out.

"..............if it is from the spirit of God it should include thanksgiving and praise to God." Did it always include thanksgiving and praise to God when we heard it during our time in The Way? (I ask this rhetorically, of course.)

Mark I don't think it's a matter of predetermining the message. Sure, there were people who did this but I think what most of us experienced was a matter of free vocalization. (the tongues segment) As to the message segment, it's more a matter of drawing from mental archives. The sessions were designed in such a way as to instruct us in what parts of the archives were acceptable for presentation, as well as establishing procedure and protocol for the presentation. I realize I'm rambling off-topic but this brings me right back to the issue of establishing what is genuine and what is not. Clearly, based on your anecdote, it's apparent that criteria was in question even all those years ago.

Re: Talking past each other From the original post "So one of the results of writing this paper is that I've redefined the primary function; the primary function of speaking in tongues is to enable a Christian to offer perfectly acceptable thanksgiving to God even though our minds are still contaminated with hypocrisy. This is possible because the Spirit, instead of our unregenerate minds, gives us the words to speak." I am refuting this to be the case with regard to practice sessions.

An illusionist's task is to redirect attention from reality. We were illusionists. We used theatrical techniques to redirect attention away from the reality of what we were doing. These practice sessions were designed to help us perfect our craft.

Historical evidence: Did you ever participate in a practice session? We called them "excellor" sessions. In these sessions we would participate in exercises that had us bringing forth tongues that started each word with a predetermined letter or sound. Sometimes we would do things like sell each other a vacuum cleaner using tongues instead of English or sing a popular song using tongues instead of the actual lyrics. This is not evidence of anything spiritual, it's simply a mental activity. I have seen similar activities performed by Non-Christian participants as well as Christian participants, thus negating the so-called spiritual connection.

Steve Were you involved in THIS discussion? We hammered away at many of these points for 106 pages. What about "practice" sessions? Do you contend that predetermining the beginning sounds of the words is a "genuine" example of speaking in tongues?

It's been my experience that the most successful ones are the ones who have learned how to do these things without being mean, hiding behind a smile.

........... waysider brought upon himself the task of proving that spirit does not function when he wrote, "Speaking in tongues is a function of the human mind, not spirit. History and science demonstrate this to be the case." He claims that history and science demonstrate that speaking in tongues is NOT a function of spirit. I have asked him to cite specific historical and scientific studies demonstrating that speaking in tongues is NOT a function of spirit. I have done this, previously, on other threads. What's the point of doing it again?

"Therefore, I would say, genuine speaking in tongues would have the reputed quality of not being understood by the speaker, and genuine speaking in tongues would not involve faking it." Not understood by the speaker That describes the TWI experience. Would not involve "faking it" Again, describes the TWI experience, as most of us were not consciously practicing deception. Is it just me or do you also see a problem with this definition?