socks

I was told repeatedly to avoid music that sounded like blues. :biglaugh:/>:biglaugh:/>:biglaugh:/> But lemme guess, white bread "country" and bluegrass hymn style muzak was fine.

Prince might have the cookies on tongues, he's certainly qualified to have ecstatic experience if that counts for anything. :biglaugh:/>

Apologies for being a lazy contributor - this may already be posted. Do you all use this site's e books? (it may already be in a previous link) http://www.frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/PoythressVernInTheBeginningWasTheWord.pdf I don't "agree" with him either, geisha, for a host of reasons too many to list here. Agree has become a funny word for me lately, but I wouldn't assign it to my perception of what he's saying about some of this stuff, his direction is away from "what" speaking in tongues actually is IMO. But it's interesting reading, as you noted.

Twinkie Survival Recipe Buy a pack of (4) of those strawberry "shortcakes", the yellowish spongy ones, most superkmarkets carry them near the strawberries. . Buy (1) can of Reddi Whip. Lay one shortcake in the palm of your hand, facing up. Shake the can of RW and press the nozzle in the EXACT middle of the shortcake, dead - center, EXACTLY, please. Squirt about a 1/2 cup of Reddi Whip into the area. Wrap the shortcake around the 1/2 cup of RW, using a slow but firm motion of the hand. Clean up any spillage. Serve. Each one forms about 3 big bites so make 2 - 3 per person. Eat.

Thanks, I wish I had something more meaningful to contribute. If I come up with any deal breakers or makers I'll be sure to put them here but don't hold your breath anyone. There's nothing that hasn't already been pointed out here or referred to that I can think of. It's certainly been discussed vigorously. Maybe God will initiate a mass tongues and interpretation festival where everyone speaking will translate into common understandable language the current Tax Code, in whole and non stop till April 15, 2029. That would be truly miraculous. Or conversely a "Stop That" Event in the Vatican where the Pope will speak with a glowing screeching dove hovering over his helmet providing indisputable proof that doves do cry but they don't speak in tongues. Or something. God's a big Detail Guy, I'll leave them up to him, but if He needs my suggestions I'm ready.

You're mis representing what I wrote Raf - and you're supporting my decision to not participate in this discussion, which I'm about to resume. I've already stated I didn't post what I did to convince anyone it was true - it is but that's a useless fact to anyone here other than me. You've stated that while you will accept that I'm writing what I believe to be true - you can't reasonably accept that it is what actually happened. I may have thought that it occurred the way I describe it but it may not have been what I believe it was. What sucks is you paint my incident in a way that isn't true to what I wrote when you state - the notion that SIT is language when anonymous people drop in from Asia and disappear, never to be heard from again, but magically becomes non-language when a linguist is looking into its veracity, based on a verse that is talking about something else entirely You're denigrating what I wrote, which I wrote in the spirit of meekness. That's over now. I didn't present that to support the notion you're proposing - I stated I believe that it may fit into an interpretation of New Testament records of SIT's where the records of people speaking in a current human language they didn't know, in group settings, may illustrate a miraculous nature to those instances, and one that isn't constant or consistent in all instance of SIT's. That isn't convenient or a way to BS an interpretation that I want out of the Bible - it's one of many possible interpretations. Do me a favor - leave me out from now on. I'm sorry I got involved, not because I don't like debating, thinking, or being challenged - Oh no - that's not the reason - Rather, it's a dead end debate for me and I'm not going to get much out of it. Maybe another time. I'll come prepared for the long haul when I do. Either way, take this in the spirit with which it's being written = :)/>/>

Ya got moxie kid! Great story.

I removed my last post because I don't want it to appear that's the direction I'm going in - it's not. It's part of it but not the whole or the majority. What I've posted thus far is about where I'm at. I just don't have the time required to keep up with the discussion. And I do believe that the records IN the bible do not exclusively paint the same picture you've adopted Raf. We do disagree but I can't approach this topic in a way that would result in getting angry or abusive about it, towards anyone.

Yeh, I get it chockful. I'm not taking exception to the analysis being done. Go for it.

Hmmm, kinda sorta chockful. I'm not interested in the gloss-any lia discussion. I don't know anything about that, I've read some of what's here, I'm familiar with the general idea, I know what it's meant to be. I don't use that kind of terminology - I'm not into this for the gloss -a's, I'm into this for the speaking in tongues and only that because I was "led", ie taught about it years ago. It was something that I would describe as "waiting" to come out though, it wasn't contrived or required extreme effort on my part, it seemed very natural and normal. I never had a forced moment, never felt like duh, wassat? It simply wasn't like that, at all. All I'm saying is what you've said a few times - the "unknown" language aspect of SIT is, IMO, a general characteristic of what SIT is. Requiring it to fit Acts 2 or a few verses is wrong, IMO. It can be known but the actual operation, manifestation, doing of it, call it what you will, isn't required to be a language that any of us understand when we hear it. I know - that sounds so conveeenient. But I'm not trying to prove it to anyone else, as I stated early on. I'm just describing what I understand and believe. There's more to it than that but it's useless to this discussion which has focused on glossalalia, known, unknown languages, etc. etc. I know this is important to you guys and I'm not trying to be demeaning, but I'm tired of talking about it already, don't know how you do it but I can appreciate that it's an important area for you all to delve into. I have clearly formulated thoughts and opinions on the topic, but I just don't have a bee in my bonnet on it. Not yet anyway. . I would contend that the overall profile of the records in the N.T. are not a match or equal to what occured in the record of Acts 2, rather that Acts specifically was a miraculous event, where the SIT was understood as described there in 2 with Peter and the boys. That's all. :)

I was going to wait for the dust to settle from the free vocalization topic (as opposed to the for-hire vocalizations) to bring that point back up chockful. I don't think it's a Wayfer method ways'. That's what the bible says - that should factor into my profile of understanding what speaking in tongues is. Or isn't. I would suggest that it applies to all contexts of speaking in tongues - not because that supports a conclusion I want it to, but simply because it would reflect the simplest of all definitions - to include that as a characteristic of speaking in tongues. All SIT? No. ALL or any SIT ALL the time? No. All private or all public? No. Rather a characteristic of what it is to speak in tongues, applicable to all of the above, at times. My own observation and study over the past 43 years leads me to conclude that and it' s not based on any other biblical references than have been posted here to there's not much value in dissecting them, we know them. I have only a half dozen instances of SIT's being a known or understood language. That's equal to 6 days out of what - about 16000, rounded up, give or take? 16000 opportunities for something to occur, times hours in the days, times people available to participate - my head hurts. That's a very very small small small percentage. And most of those I know who have similar experiences would calculate out somewhere in that range, I don't know of anyone who has ever said publicly that the majority of what they've heard is a miraculous event of a known language - say, French, being spoken by someone who doesn't know French and it being the 'wonderful works of God' by any description, when heard or interpreted. I think that's just the way it is, facts is the facts. So if that were compiled with others and scaled up for verrrrrrry general estima-guesstations - I think that IF speaking in tongues is "done" today at all - and I do - It's not going to fit the profile of a known recognizable language, to those speaking and hearing it, at that time and place. I AM accepting SIT as real, (but not because of this language information). And so, accepting it, this is one of the things that it appears to "be". Or not be, whichever way you look at it. I would also suggest another descriptor for discussion - "recognizable", in addition to unknown. A thing can be knowable but not recognized by those examining it at that time. That would cover some of the ground being tossed here. Just a thought.

<br> November 6, a full Day of Triangulation, when man, greed and God Money unite. Time to get paid! <br> <br> Pulse....check <br> <br> Respiration....check <br> <br> Rea-Re---ReFla-a-l-P7ÿNP R.P7.....Ytilaer...kcehc <br> <br> <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ao-Sahfy7Hg?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Not me, Raf. figure, what the heck. It was - 1. your thread and 2. a fairly vigorous discussion. In real life I have preferences and make choices. I like some things, don't like others. Not liking something from a personal preference standpoint isn't always looked at fondly by people, as if there's something wrong with it. As if we should all be fair and open and able to like everything or at least tolerate everything. To me that's not real, it's not how I live anyway. If I don't like something or have a preference I can exercise in my favor - I do. If it means loss to others or could have a negative effect on someone I will definitely try to weigh that and do right by others as I'd like to be done right by others to me. Or something like that. I allow the same thing in others. Bugs the crap out of me sometimes - "how can they be so stooopid???"....or is that what they say about me? Either way. I feel like a lot of endless wasting of effort and time can go into dissecting how and why we can be fair and balanced and equitable in all things all the time :wave:when the net result is often not that way and it's unrealistic to expect it. It's realistic to try but I have to take the results as they come and work with them. GS is sensitive to this sort of stuff for obvious reasons. To expect perfection is fine, to work towards it is great, to insist on it - is going to be lonely work. I know - I'm easy. Not always, I just save energy for stuff that really matters, like working towards a world where a Gibson or Fender guitar made in America doesn't cost as much as a down payment on a house, or a car. Ya gotta pick your battles. Your thread, you closed it - you opened it. What's not to like?

Sorry, I was busy speaking in tongues for the east coast and the aftermath of Sandy. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA~~~!!! To me, that's just funny. Laugh with me, people, laugh. It's ultra serious, compared to this bs. Like the world's going to end tomorrow if we don't figure out why free vocalization sounds like Keith Jarrett gargling. I know - I know, that's why I didn't get too involved, excie and I were playing bongoes in the back. That other thread? Toast and jam, I never though it was all that rude or crude. You guys may want to move out to the west coast, where everyboydy's, like all mellow and stuff. Whatever, man, y'know? It's all good and cool, and stuff.

Not sure, perhaps we could consider options.

Aaaah...sentence reduced to time served! *squank!* Next case!

I accept all guilt and the freedom that comes with that, Raf. We've never met but I feel like I know you and I enjoy your thoughts and writing. You're no slouch so you had to know, or might have suspected that if I was using my noodle I would never say "Chinese" without understanding what that might imply, in English anyway. But I wasn't trying to instigate anything. Really. Honest to jolly rogers. If I can remember who mod-cat-in-a-hat is, or was, I might remember what I posted a few days ago. Whatever effect that might have on remembering something 40+ years ago, hard to say. But, it's kind of fun thinking about it. All. All in fun though.

Now that the other thread is locked, this should be a short one. Raf - you chose to ask several questions about the incident I wrote about. I'm not going to answer them. It's not out of anger - well, I did have another really ROCKING post that is now locked but at least it can be read, so all's not lost. But no anger here. My story's not going to get picked full of holes by questions about facts that are - Over 40 years old. If one thing happened once 40 years ago that I remember and post here, it's only because that one event was one of the more astounding events of it's kind - for me. I didn't share it to satisfy anyone's need for factual support of evidence. It's not a usable fact in any sense of the words - it's meaninful to me today and I'm sure that it was meaningful for those who were there, if they remember it. Maybe they don't or would have a completely different interpretation of what happened. I don't need proof, for me. I am the proof, of my own life. No one else would believe it anyway. I've never posted the really strange stuff here, in all these years. If that's difficult to swallow you'd get a reall kick out of the good stuff. :biglaugh: :biglaugh: But just for fun, if anyone has anything good, really unbelievable, really just like toatally - no way is that gonna stand - lay it out for all to disbelieve!

You identify one of the fundamental elements of life geisha - For instance I canI see that God can heal the sick - but from the human side not everyone is healed when they're sick and not in ways that appear consistent, the same way every time. One perspective would ask the question: why some but not all, why now and not always, why here but not somewhere else? Adding the human effort and trying to make in consistent and reliable won't work as well as I once thought, for the most obvious of reasons - human effort at it's best isn't 100 per cent consistent in quality or quantity, certainly not in the same way that "God" is. So if believing action is the key I'm going to be out of luck because at best I won't keep that key turned on all the time. Grace factors in a host of things that I can't accomplish by human effort and can't manage and sustain consistently. Grace could be more than getting what I haven't earned, by "grace" I'm saved, etc.....grace really allows for a whole range of activity that I have no control over, when I think about it.... Speaking in tongues may be less a function of the "new life" and more an expression of the "saved life", the life in transition in this life. They will "cease", have an end to their use and presumably the need. Use in public expression or worship, I have seen their affect when the true "language of men" has occurred - it feels like, sounds like more of a miraculous event, "signs miracles and wonders" - where a Chinese couple hear their native language spoken by a person who clearly doesn't know it - it definitely knocks people back and gathers attention. Why then? There? why those people and not others? I've said it before and it's my best answer - I don't know. My sense is - of a larger construct being revealed, but - that's another topic really. :)

Something I started to put in an earlier post and never posted relates to something you state Pete, the flip side - Over the years I met quite a few people in the Way who were NOT what I'd call "born again", biblically or otherwise. I don't mean that as a blanket statement because of how this or that and wrong and bad and nasty and cultish or whatever - that The Way is considered to have been and be. Rather that the people weren't clear on their belief and confession of Jesus Christ as savior, redeemer and primary arbiter of salvation. Some folks "got into the Way" via the PFAL class, and took as a kind of self help/positive thinking class. The idea that it was taught from the bible and revolved around Jesus Christ got muddied up with the intense promotion of "The Word of God" as that which a person must cleave to, follow, accept, treasure and learn. The "logos" was actually taught in PFAL but if you just focused on the Written Word part of that as the end result of your effort, you might not in fact ever actually accept Jesus Christ as taught from the Bible. VPW did in fact cover salvation in PFAL but because of the scheduling and bums-rush treatment of hurrying through to the end of the material - sessions 9 - 12 - you could actually not "get born again" or accept Christ as they say and not have the personal committment and confession to God and Jesus Christ - with no time to stop - Rather someone might have a general agreement, a "that's cool" kind of attitude, and complete the class but not have really gone deep on it. Let's face it, the earlier schedules were loose but as time went on the PFAL in 2 weeks schedule was not a good way to do it. So if you didn't, you would still end up in Session 12 getting "encouraged" to speak in tongues. I know a lot of people who simply weren't ready at that point and as a class instructor I wouldn't put a big do-or-die challenge out to people, rather I expected follow up. (I probably facilitated dunno, over 30 PFAL classes at least, taught some sessions live myself and did my own small versions of the sessions many times over the years, piecemeal style) There were people in the Way who had a very flat, one dimensionsal view and understanding of Jesus Christ and salvation. LCM got that way, his whole global view of Christianity seemed - to me - to be paper thin. This could account for the confusion and also for how and why people went along with it and never really engaged. I hesitated to post this - and by my experience it's 100 per cent true and something I struggled with my last few years in the Way with some of the people - because it isn't meant to be a blanket dismissal or explanation and definitely isn't meant to apply specifically to Raf, geisha or others here. It does cover some ground about the Way though - The Way didn't like to admit it but it attracted the same kinds of social "members" as any church would, people who's participation was family driven, social or business reasons, personal, etc. etc. etc.

Really, I'm surprised anyone has ever believed in Jesus Christ, beyond the original people who knew Him - if there were people and they did have someone to meet. None of it's measurable from us today. Every once in awhile someone sees Jesus in their toast or in a cloud formation but other than that He's not walking around handing out PFAL books. Or free pita bread. Even if I take the most reasonable documentation out side of the Bible itself I don't have many recognitions of a son of God quality savior. The Way tried to construct a kind of Uber Super Man, created by God as only He could, to be His Son. With that kind of DNA, it only makes sense He'd be walkin' and talkin' tall. But that seems lacking in the kind of detail that other parts of the New Testament talk about. In any case - I've long contended that the limitations of the physical universe as it's known and understood today don't allow for the kind of irrefutable undeniable proofs and evidence of our collective existence that we'd like to have. We just don't - it's in the fabric of - h ell , it's just the way it is. The present moment in non-repeatable. It can't be accessed from any other point, past or future. EXCEPT through memory. We work in a world that is reliant on some very sketchy residual artifacts. WE may know we mowed the lawn, or filled the car with gas or eaten an apple - but to anyone else - who knows? "Life is but a dream"..........has some truth to it. Considering how much time we spend involved in realities that either don't exist anymore or haven't existed yet - it's kind of weird how such a small fraction of time actually ever really exists in a completely usable fashion. Subjective or Objective? What works and when? Okay - sorry for the derail. To maintain some semblance of relationship to the thread I'd suggest Henri Bergson's "Memory and Matter", and maybe Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene", the one from 1976. :)

The three most cursed phrases on the internet are: Coming Soon Under Construction Check Back Soon You can add to the profanity and vileness by putting ! at the end of any or all. Vile words, and their very existence is an assault on people of good manners and morals everywhere and insults us all by their very existence!!!!

Thanks! Reading the filings - Research isn't mentioned at all in the first filing and isn't in the later filing/update to change the name. :) "Promoting biblical education" in "all departments of learning and knowledge" and especially in the "branches" of the company that would be involved in collecting money, properties and other resources related to accomplishing that. If you read what they wrote, it reads very clearly what their intention was.

I often refer to my own religion as "Chaos Christianity" Steve, the ultimate no-box brand but it's more of a reverse engineered way of labeling my own perception of an ordered universe that is beyond my complete comprehension. I see in the bible's history a description of "domains" that are transitioning and changing over time. This isn't quite the standard administration-dispensation approach of Darby and Western Evangelicals as it trickled down to me though but is more that I am seeing an unchanging God through the eyes of a changing creation. I can see however that God is huge, eternal, has ways above our ways and to quote from Dune has "plans within plans" and perhaps a Big Master Plan that I can understand parts of but only to a small degree. Of course I also realize I don't know what I don't know so there's always that limitation. But to paraphrase Geisha I do know what I do know and that's not insignificant. It isn't and I think that while I would maintain that meekness is the only reasonable response for mankind to have to God we are still expected to go to Him and establish our side of a relationship - That requires a kind of and a degree of stability and reliability. We know that God describes Himself as the Gold Standard in Stable and Reliable, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that God would extend some of that and that our perception of God would be based on that - put another way God HAS to be the GS when it comes to consistency and stability. If we exist in a universe where anything can happen, where God can do anything He chooses at any moment and then do anything else completely different in the next moment repeatability then becomes very very important. Life is repeating and consistent, seemingly like molasses in winter slow sometimes in it's consistency but on a larger scale may be playing out in ways I can't comprehend, yet that doesn't lead me to conclude that comprehension isn't part of life. We're always in our Wonder Years though, it is important to remain open to the magnanimous diversity of God. It would seem that God intends for us to know and understand quite a few things about him and our own lives, and to have a kind of "world view" that will allow us to "work out our own salvation" with Him. I wouldn't call it a stuffy box though, unless you're using that to mean you don't want to limit God. I'd agree but I think that God has placed His own order and agreements on Himself as evidenced by this creation we live in and go to Him from.

That's my point, excarta, really. Or at least the way I take it. It was written - however and by who(m?)ever. The story's been told and retold. Somewhere in the distant past the story of Jesus was passed on by people on whom He had the greatest impact. Historians will allow that the "historical" Jesus er, existed. I think I've read that and found it an unwieldy way to say it but fer Krissake, Jesus has been so objectified it's probably reasonable to state it that way. A guy named Jesus, Yeshua, Kristos, the man written about in the gospels and the Bible - Josephus, Tacitus, Eusebius that mentions HIm - that he lived, at about the time the Bible places Him in history. Many if not most but not all historians allow that much. The Bible and the other writings that have been passed down have had - IMO - a kind of domino effect that speaks to an extremely powerful life in that "Jesus". The writings that passed muster to make the "canon" we now have (Boom!!) are fairly straightforward accounts. I'm thinking of the Gospels and Acts specifically. They have some incredible stuff in them yes, but the tone of the writing is of a person or people attempting to capture the important events of the period they cover. The following epistles make foundational statements and arguments as to the meaning of those events - "doctrine", dogma, concepts, how's and why's. As I read the writings of the early church, the "fathers", this continues - events, doctrine, and then practical matters and business stuff - like the earlier Timothy and Titus-how the church should govern itself, how to work together, etc. As more years get between the earlier writings and then the 3-400 year periods and subsequent "councils" that were held there's more writing that covers doctrine and the effort to elucidate and elaborate on the ideas and ideals of the earlier writings. It begins to get quite esoteric as time goes on. This can be seen in the history of church councils - the first one in Act 15 covers Gentile converts and what that means to the church. There's a lot of doctrinal issues, ideas, Jews and Gentiles now in the same "body", definitely conflicting ideas and debate. But the church in Jerusalem is recorded as accepting the revelation Peter and Paul state they've had and agree to move on together as one, with only a very few simple demands to be made on the Gentile Christian followers. It's not heady stuff - it's very basic, and doesn't make huge intellectual or theological/religious demands on anyone - once you get past that Gentiles are now part of the church.:) Within a couple hundred years though the church is struggling with the "who and what" of Jesus Christ, His "nature" and what all of that means. There's been a development of intellectual property within the church and as the years go on that development of doctrine continues and is stamped out and issued, council by council, not all at once but over time. My point is that the earliest writings and accounts are about "stuff" - people, events, things that happened and that's what the church doctrine of "Christianity" is and was based on. Later church writings become more about what those things mean and there's more postulating and extrapolation on the earlier history's meaning that's issued to broaden and beef up what "Christianity" is and means. There are miracles and events that become part of the church's platform - that don't - and I'm trying to be respectful here - sound like they're part of the same context as what the earliest church writings speak of. Put another way Christianity becomes very mystical and esoteric for many of the theologians that craft out the teachings of the day. Contrasting that with the earlier writings, it does come down over the years like a plausible history - where something occurs and is rooted in reality, real people, events, stuff - and then over time it becomes a verrrrrrrrrrry diverse array of ideas and doctrines as both believer and unbeliever struggle with that history, what it means, meant, doesn't mean or meant, etc. etc. etc. I'm being very general here and as always wordy -but that's the way it comes off to me. They may be words on paper and meaningless to some people though, that's fine with me. I suggest to anyone though to read them at whatever level they wish to begin with and let what they read reach out to them and reveal itself - let it reveal itself to that person. Or not. No charge, and so no money back guarantees here.