waysider

The leap of faith. Yes, almost anything can be justified with a leap of faith. That's what Wierwille asked us to take in the Christians Should Have Sex class when he revealed "the original sin" and said, "I can't prove this from the scriptures, you'll just have to take my word on it." I'm not saying you should never take a leap of faith. I'm just saying this isn't one of those situations that warrants it.

Sorry...clicked the wrong thing It's called a Burden of Proof Fallacy.

It's really quite simple. It can be proven that a sample of speaking in tongues is not a language. It cannot be proven that a sample of speaking in tongues is a language. The onus of proof has somehow been reversed in this argument.

Isn't this sort of proof a bit like saying, "If you're not here, raise your hand."?

This point, in particular, helps greatly in understanding that it's not a uniquely Christian ability. Christians can do it. Jews can do it. Shamans can do it. The list goes on. How is that possible? Simple. It's merely an innate ability of the human mind to "speak in tongues". It might sound genuine and be presented with theatrical fanfare but, in the end, it's not a real language. There are plenty of recorded examples that could be examined from a mathematical perspective to show that it's not real. I think, for some people, that would prove to be like chasing the end of the rainbow. I'm reminded of the movie The Gods Must Be Crazy. In it, a group of people who have never had contact with the world outside their cultural sphere are confronted with the discovery of a Coke bottle that has been discarded by someone in a passing airplane. The bottle could be this or the bottle could be that but, ultimately, the bottle is just a bottle. HERE

Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is the law of parsimony, economy, or succinctness. It is a principle stating that among competing hypotheses, the one which makes the fewest assumptions should be selected. Occam's Razor

Sounds like a really loving sort of organization. How can I join?

I can't speak for opera buff but, maybe it's just his way of saying he wishes more people would give serious consideration to the sort of subjects that are discussed on GreaseSpot instead of dismissing them so easily. I'll have to wait for his clarification.

Whatever it is that's going on when someone speaks in tongues, I think we can pretty much rule out that it's a "language", at least by the typically accepted definition of language. If it is a language, in the accepted sense, its structure should be mathematically graphable.

Yeah, the "mannies" are sort of like a fulcrum for ex-Way people. Such a huge part of our identity was based on them being real. It's like the ultimate deal breaker for some people. A house of cards. If they're not real, what's left? I don't know. You could start with the golden rule, treat other people with respect, treat them the way you would want them to treat you. That ought to keep a person busy enough for a lifetime.

Yea, my children, get out and vote. (Politics from the pulpit)

Even more damning than hearing the same other people do TIP and Prophesy time after time after time is hearing yourself do it again and again and again and again. I don't think you get that sort of experience just hanging out with the local twig a couple times a week.

"Spiritualism also differs from occult movements, such as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn or the contemporary Wiccan covens, in that spirits are not contacted to obtain magical powers (with the exception of power for healing). For example, Madame Blavatsky (1831–91), the founder of the Theosophical Society, only practiced mediumship to contact powerful spirits capable of conferring esoteric knowledge. Blavatsky did not believe these spirits were deceased humans, and held beliefs in reincarnation different from the views of most Spiritualists.[2] Spiritualists at that time viewed Theosophy as unscientific and both occultist and cult-like. Theosophists viewed Spiritualism as unsophisticated and uncosmopolitan.[10]" (citation: see previous link)

I find it a bit curious that Charles Fox Parham's Apostolic Faith Movement (focused on what we call the manifestations) started gaining traction not long after Spiritualism became in vogue. Parham's ministry bears some striking similarities to that of VPW, as well, aside from the financial aspect.

When you get honest about it, it's really not much different than a séance, except instead of attempting to channel dear old Aunt Minnie, you're attempting to channel God. "Oh, but it's real and séances are counterfeit." Uh huh. <_<

My thoughts on interpretation and prophesy? I think if you're only exposed to them on a limited basis, like Wednesday night twig or Sunday night fellowship, they continue to hold some kind of mystique about them. In FellowLaborers, though, we were exposed to them a bare minimum of twice a day and frequently more than that. (It was a two year commitment. Do the math.) To use a familiar expression, "it got old fast". I had my doubts about interpretation and prophesy long before I had doubts about speaking in tongues.

I'm not sure what you mean by asylum. HERE is how Homeland Security defines it.

Allow me to translate the phrase......The accent is on "prevailing". Ya see, there are lots of different versions of God's Word floating around in this old world but, TWI's version is the "prevailing" version....as in THE BEST! See now? Nothing has changed.

Yea, verily, I say unto you, thou shalt dwell upon the convenient and be not swayed to the left or the right.

That's a dove? I thought it was a buzzard, dropping in to feast on a rotting carcase.

You don't have to identify the language or even the message. You simply need to have someone validate that the recorded samples meet the mathematical criteria established for identifying structured language.

"Unless one can fake it unknowingly. But then it should sound like jibberish." Why would it necessarily sound like jibberish? The links that Excie posted don't sound like jibberish but, I doubt they demonstrate an actual language. If they do, someone who is skilled in information theory should be able to mathematically graph them without even specifically identifying them. Even so, they could be simply scripted, as we don't have any evidence they were spontaneously produced.

My take on what may or may not have happened beyond the day of Pentecost is this: The record of what happened on The Day of Pentecost seems to establish an identifying criteria for what would then become known as speaking in tongues. That criteria involved the speakers uttering known languages. Languages have structure. Having words that are from a recognizable language is not substantial enough evidence to meet the criteria of structure. Sometimes, in The Way, there were valid words interspersed in the interpretation messages, but, there was no recognizable linguistic structure.. What we did in The Way does not meet the necessary criteria to be equated with the Pentecost experience.

Even if they have been around since 1942, how long has it been since they've done anything that even remotely resembles research? :B)

I don't see any real evidence that having doubts about speaking in tongues would make you an atheist. Lots and lots of Christians have disputed the veracity of speaking in tongues. Surely, they can't all be atheists.