waysider

huh?

If you examine the accounts of what is said to have happened in the first century and compare them to what we did in The Way, they don't appear to be the same thing. Same name or terminology, maybe, but not the same thing.

1. SIT....see current thread 2. study the word.....as defined by Way Theology 3. fellowship w/ likeminded believers.....self imposed isolation 4. abs...provide financial support for a corrupt organization (TWI) 5. witness...recruit unwitting converts into the MLM structured fold (Pg#2/W&U...."The basic reason we witness is to help people into the classes on Power for Abundant Living...)

My family never ostracized me.

Well, that's proof enough for me.

Something that occurred to me about excellor sessions. We, as instructors, told people to "believe" for God to meet whatever criteria was being requested such as,"Believe God for every sentence to start with the next letter of the alphabet." ....etc. It happened at session #12, too. "You move your lips, tongue, etc. and 'believe' God for the words." (I think we've been down that "believing" road enough times to skip any extensive rehashing of it,yes?) Clearly, this puts the onus on the speaker to provide sufficient "believing" for God to act on their behalf. Someone has repetitive messages, limited vocabulary?....Must be that they lack "believing" to receive. <_<

It says the audience heard them speak in their languages and understood them. I think that rules out the possibility of "free vocalization". (as defined by Rev. Vern)

http://www.skepdic.com/glossol.html Nicholas Spanos notes: "Typically, the interpretation supports the central tenets of the religious community." ..................................... http://andrewnewberg.com/pdfs/2006/TonguesPaper.pdf scientific look at the cerebral activity involved

I think more people are drawn to About The Way than Doctrinal, especially new arrivals. Maybe you could do an initial post there and then do a redirect.

Should I speak in tongues? Should I not speak in tongues? Consider this: Jesus never spoke in tongues....He still managed to do okay for himself. :)

Well, we were "the best", now, weren't we?

I think that's a fair question.....but probably better suited for the doctrinal forum, in another thread. As it relates to this thread, I think that question is part of what puts people off when considering the authenticity of speaking in tongues. After all, we were taught, in a round about way, that speaking in tongues IS the proof.

Some of the earlier studies involved observing people in an ecstatic state while they spoke in tongues. They drew an erroneous correlation. In The Way, we spoke in tongues under much different circumstances. Maybe that's why we find the comparison somewhat offensive. Aside from the circumstances and presentation, though, I think the actual speaking in tongues is the same for both examples.

My impression of the way he's drawing distinctions is that he's referencing the same thing, presented in different contexts. (T-speech is not different from free speech, it's the same thing in a different setting.)

According to Way Theology, messages brought forth in believers meetings were never supposed to involve anything that specifically referenced the future. They were supposed to be general in nature. With that in mind, consider this. Instead of having mannies, you pause briefly to give the group some general words of encouragement. It goes something like this: Twig leader>>waysider, would you bring forth some encouragement? waysider>>>>>Hey fellas, keep your chins up. Everything's gonna be cool. Well, of course you might think, "What does he know? He's just some punk kid who eats Moonpies and drinks Nehi Soda!" But, change the source of the same message and it might sound like this.... "My precious children, despair not, for I, the Lord thy God, will keep thee safe." ............................................................................................ There's a point in all that but I don't think I'm doing too well at expressing it.

Have you ever heard a TIP that wasn't "accurate"? (I use that term loosely.) It couldn't, logically, have been a genuine interpretation of the tongue. Likewise, it couldn't have been a genuine prophesy, for obvious reasons. So, what options are we left with?

I don't think I was implying you should write off the entire Charismatic Christian movement. I was explaining how I perceive a connection between what we were hearing in those believers meetings and how it influenced/enforced our thinking. It happened in group settings, on an individual level. (group reinforcement of modified self awareness)

It's like a boot camp you can never graduate from.

When angels have believers meetings, do they speak in English?

Next topic of discussion: Stretched Coffee: Real or just a cruel hoax?

I was in a believer's meeting once where a guy from Kansas gave a word of prophesy to a roomful of unemployed believer hippie type folks. It went something like this: "My little children, cut your hair and get jobs!" Now, at least I know THAT one was "right on".

Yeah, magnetrons. I've made myself quite a collection of tool holders by stripping out the magnets. I must have one for every tool I own and then some. Maybe I'm stockpiling them for the next lifetime.

Maybe I was a Chia Pet....or two...Yes, that's it, I was two Chia Pets!

We've talked about tongues of men, tongues of angels, ancient tongues, encoded tongues. One possibility that has eluded us is that they might be tongues of the future. You know? You hear a joke on late night TV but it doesn't sink in. Next morning you wake up, smack your forehead and say, "OOOOH!, now I get it!" :B)

You're assuming those messages were genuine. Quite a stretch, based on what we've been discussing. But, no matter. Suppose we call it "group reinforcement". Would you be more open to consider that possibility?