waysider

Consider this as a twist: Perhaps, had we not become so enamored and defensive of glossolalia, we might have embarked on a quest to uncover the true meaning of Paul's words, "I would that you all spoke with tongues."

Or if you're anything like me, you scurry down to the local grocery and pick up some Glory Foods greens. http://www.gloryfoods.com/Products/Seasoned-Southern-Greens-and-Spinach.aspx

And don't forget the greens. YUM!! http://simplyrecipes.com/recipes/beet_greens/

Done With The Devil HEREMy link

22

I signed them up for the class. :(

Well, you can't "beat" that.

Exactly! People were practicing glossolalia long before Jesus was ever born. Hence, they could not have "made Jesus Lord". Wierwille latched onto the old glossolalia movement that was re-energized in the early twentieth century and said, "Oh, look, keeds, this MUST be what the Bible is talking about when it refers to speaking in tongues." Toss in a smattering of very "privately interpreted" scriptures and BINGO!, you're going to heaven and all hell can't stop you! Does this mean that the Jews and pagans who practiced glossolalia (which is what we called SIT) before Christ's time are going to heaven, too? We really have no way that I am aware of to know what the Bible is referencing when it talks about speaking in tongues. I'm pretty sure, though, that it's not some process you are required to partake of on a daily (and excessive) basis before you can any hope of having a spiritual connection to God.

Man has already destroyed large and important portions of the Earth and continues to do so at a rapid pace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation That subject, though, really deserves a thread of its own.

Here's part of the SIT doctrine as presented in the Advanced Class. "Speaking in tongues much daily is prerequisite to receiving revelation." Has anyone ever stopped to consider the absurdity of this? ********************************************** Or how about this from PLAF. "You have to speak in tongues much so the Christ in you will be spiritually nurtured and grow big and strong." Helloooo? You supposedly have this spirit inside you that is completely, completely complete, perfect in every way, but you have to water it and sprinkle on a steady diet of spirit food so it can get more "completer" and more "perfecter"? ************************* These are examples of what I am talking about when I say SIT (Way doctrine regarding speaking in tongues/ glossolalia) is bogus.

I'm not sure what else I could possibly say to stress that I am not interested in validating or invalidating anyone's personal experience with speaking in tongues. My point is simply this: When it comes to spiritual matters, Way doctrine has an extremely low level of credibility. Consider, for example, the Advanced Class teachings on devil spirits, discerning of spirits and the rest of the revelation and impartation manifestations. Think about how far out in la-la land some of that material is. Why, on Earth, should we assume then that the doctrines surrounding the subject of speaking in tongues are any more credible? Should we blindly accept everything that was presented in sessions 11 & 12 as if it is the end all answer to everything you ever wanted to know about speaking in tongues? I think that would be an unwise decision.

Well said, George.

How can we even know if this thing we call "speaking in tongues" is, indeed, the same thing being referred to in Acts and Cor.?----or if this admonition was directed solely toward a specific group at a specific space in time? This whole concept of increasing your spiritual prowess in direct proportion to time spent practicing glossolalia (sessions 11 & 12) would appear to greatly diminish the importance of anything that may have been accomplished on the cross.

Apparently, I have failed to make myself clear. I am not addressing the practice of speaking in tongues per se. Nor am I addressing it's validity. What I am addressing is the doctrine of "SIT" that was built around it in Way theology. Clearly, it's not "spiritual mashed potatoes for the Christ in you" or "proof that you're going to heaven and all hell can't stop you." as was taught in the context of SIT. I propose that much of what we think we know about speaking in tongues is really just Way theology (ie:SIT)

Maybe for some folks, but much more recent (and even current) for others. Time is irrelevant, though. Would you tell a rape victim to "get over it" simply because much time has elapsed? Everyone's time table for healing is uniquely theirs.

Maybe I missed something. How exactly is this situation Obama's fault?

Wasn't it Wierwille who claimed there was a devil spirit lurking behind every statue?

Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?

In the 1960's, there was a little bar on the East Side of Cleveland called Faragher's Back Room. It was a little hole in the wall. Mostly it featured local talent but many times you could catch an up and coming act such as Bob Dylan, Peter, Paul and Mary, Phil Ochs, Eric Anderson, etc. as they were passing through town. I don't think there was even a cover charge. Of course, they weren't "famous" yet at that time. http://ech.cwru.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=FBR

The standard teaching in TWI was that Jesus had to have had perfect "believing" and never doubt for a second in order to pull off his feat. And the idea was that if we could perfect our "believing" in like manner, we could do the same thing. Does anyone see a huge problem with this? Well, for starters, the "law" of believing is bogus! This wasn't a promotion of what Jesus did. It was an infomercial for TWI doctrine. (specifically, the "law" of believing.) Therefore it's a moot point . Now, with that obstacle out of the way, who's to say he never had any doubts about anything? Maybe he actually said "Why have you forsaken me?" because that's how he really felt. Just a thought.

Hiya, tag SIT is the acronym that The Way used to refer to it's particular brand of doctrine regarding speaking in tongues. It is my contention that SIT (TWI's particular brand of doctrine regarding speaking in tongues) is bogus. Thanks for asking.

I could be mistaken (on account of I'm an old guy now and my memory ain't what it used to be) but I seem to recall that particular version being part of CF&S.

I was looking for a replacement for my lost PLAF book and stumbbled in the door.

Here's my metaphysical thought for the day: Suppose God really talks to us in ways that transcend "language" as we know it. Wouldn't that make The Way and all it's intricate studies of specific "words" a rather diabolical twist of irony?

Out of respect, we should probably retire this thread, now that he has passed on. Just a thought.