waysider

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?

I'm not trying to be a pain but I'm still waiting for you to explain how you determine if something, such as speaking in tongues, is "genuine". What guidelines do you follow? Are there characteristics that expose the fraudulent variety, set it apart from "the real deal"?

As they say on another popular web site, "Explain it like I'm 5."

Earlier, you asked me "What is genuine?" It's not a trick question. What criteria do you use to determine if it's real or not? Now I'm asking you, "Were you deluded then, or are you deluded now? How can you tell?" How can you tell? You weigh your conclusion against the evidence. Believing in something that evidence contradicts is delusion.

I don't think I was "faking", per se. Faking implies a deliberate effort. I think what I was doing was deluding myself into thinking it was real. Even though Charles Parham and William Seymour had pioneered the modern Pentecostal movement in the early 1900's, I had never personally heard of it (in a religious context) before I got involved with The Way. That contributed to my vulnerability, I'm sure.

Steve You're spinning so fast it's making me dizzy. First (and this is important) I never mentioned or even suggested the concept of "altered minds". I simply said it's a mental function. Solving a math problem is a mental function. You don't need to alter your mind to do it. When I studied acting, we used an improvisational technique that is suspiciously similar (OK, it's identical) to what we called speaking in tongues. We weren't in a state of altered consciousness. I did it, my classmates did it, lots of folks did it. Were we all Christians? I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that. What is "genuine"? Who determines the parameters? What's the criteria? If something is going to be declared genuine, there must be defining qualities that differentiate it from the false. Supersymmetry? I lack the sort of scientific and math background needed to address that subject intelligently. I personally suggest a much less ethereal approach. Look objectively at what it is, rather than what it might be.

This is possible because the Spirit, instead of our unregenerate minds, gives us the words to speak. You don't need spirit to speak in tongues. It's done by Non-Christians as well as Christians. Speaking in tongues is a function of the human mind, not spirit. History and science demonstrate this to be the case.