TLC

Nah... seriously ? This is the guy that said that ? Surely he must have been just trying to push somebody's button...

Sure. It's not clear to me what your measuring stick was/is, so feel free to PM me if you're more comfortable with it. Any written work can offer a springboard to whole host of other things. But how useful or helpful it is seems to depend on a summation such things as: how much truth it contains, how quickly and easily the effectiveness (and/or error in it) is recognized or perceived, and to what degree any of it is accepted, believed, or acted upon. After all, to paraphrase an old saying, truth on the heel of the devil is still truth. Still, the real difficulty isn't in recognizing truth (or harder yet, applicable truth.) A more common (and often more damaging) failure resides in elevating one truth at the expense of some other truth.

Didn't ask (or care) about "scientifically controlled" anything. Only what your perspective on "doing well" was or is. Which (thus far), you haven't actually said... as you've only indicated it's better than however you measured yourself and thought yourself to be doing in the years prior. Care to clarify (or specify) what you mean, exactly? (I'd rather not suggest anything that might inadvertently lead, push, pull or sway your mind in any particular direction.) So, there's a puzzle in how the brain processes and perceives the world around us, and you perfected the solution? Two sides to every coin, it seems. How do you see it?

According to what (or who's) standard? Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining or expounding a bit on what, exactly, you mean by "pretty well." Is it more of a comparison to others you see, know or hear about in the news? Or maybe you take it to mean something else...

Rationalize whatever conclusion you want. It doesn't preclude the rationality of any and all other explanations.

This (like some number of other things taught in TWI) was evidently the product of someone (such as Earl) trying to "make sense" of (i.e., interpret, put a more scientific spin on, present "new light" on... take your pick) certain verses of scripture that were hard to understand. What often resulted, of course, were things even harder to understand or make good sense of. Personally, I don't see there being a point in trying to figure what is or isn't at the edge of the universe (or beyond), as it has absolutely nothing to do with where the water came from that flooded the earth. (There's better, relatively easy to understand, and far more rational explanations for it already published some number of years ago on the Internet.) Furthermore, any effort to define a boundary in physical terms inherently puts an artificial "distance" between the physical and the spiritual, which really shouldn't be there. So, no wonder it's hard to make sense of any of that stuff. Seems to be nothing more than the human mind, man's intelligence, turned loose on something beyond its ability.

Or, perhaps not. (evidently...)

This, from their doctrinal statement page, WW. (still a very far cry from Geerite stuff. Evidently the site you reference appears to be a part of http://stlouisbiblefellowship.net/ ) ____________________________________ The Godhead There is One God, manifested in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:26; Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 48:16; Mark 1:10-11; John 1:1, John 1:14; Colossians 1:15-19, Colossians 2:9). The Person of Christ Jesus Christ was begotten by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary and is true God and true man (Luke 1:35; Romans 1:3-4). _____________________________________ A Ministry of St. Louis Bible Fellowship at St. Louis

Yeah, not a snowball's chance in H. (from that site...) ___________________________ The Godhead There is One God, manifested in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:26 ; Deuteronomy 6:4 ; Isaiah 48:16 ; Mark 1:10-11 ; John 1:1 , John 1:14 ; Colossians 1:15-19 , Colossians 2:9 ). The Person of Christ Jesus Christ was begotten by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary and is true God and true man (Luke 1:35 ; Romans 1:3-4 ). ___________________________ Affiliations Our church is affiliated with these organizations St. Louis Theological Seminary (STLTS) The purpose of St. Louis Theological Seminary and Bible College is to provide religious education and to train men and women for ministry service. Grace Gospel Fellowship (GGF) GGf exists to serve & help our churches & Pastors. Children's Relief Mission (CRM) (CRM) exists for the sake of children in need, in many places, under every circumstance. Lost and Found Lost and Found, INC. serves the nation in Christian ministry by providing prevention, intervention, and treatment resources to the individual, family, and youth. Missouri Association for Creation (M.A.C.) M.A.C. was founded in 1972 by two graduate students at the University of Missouri in Columbia. These students felt a need to establish a forum from which they could critically examine the scientific evidence as it pertains to the origin of the Cosmos in general and living organisms in particular.

Affiliations allowed to have a web site? .... or, maybe not. This page can’t be displayed Make sure the web address http://stlbf.org is correct.

On this site, or somewhere else?

If you truly are genuinely interested and/or pleased to address the question (not simply "respond" to it), and are only at ease doing it privately, then please use the private message system here at GS. (However, it appears that I am not the only one interested.) Knowing a little of how God can (and has in the past) work(ed), the same (or very similar) "new" thought on a particular matter might surface in a number of people quite independently (even though not simultaneously), and there's really isn't much of any way to consider the possibility of that without asking what you might think is original in what you've written. (Thought perhaps if I explained why I asked what I did, it would stir a different, more educational, response from you.) As a side note, I'd be surprised if most here are unfamiliar with Dylan, Hendrix, or Joplin. But quite frankly, I don't get why you think the addition of his name to the subject enhances it any.

never heard of such baloney. who thinks up such ridiculousness?

Just curious... Is there some part of your writing that you think or feel is original in thought? (And yeah, I skimmed through much of what's on your site already...)

Okay, thanks. Would have never recognized him. Of course, I barely recognized boob and dooty, and probably didn't ever know the others. I only asked about the one promptly stickin' his foot in his mouth. Didn't he split with Cindy some time back?

Is it any wonder why God would choose a lowly sheep herder (considered by Egyptians, if not others, to be about the lowest profession of men) to be His voice to the world? How many priests after the lineage of Aaron were chosen? (Yeah... which of the next generation of youngsters do you suppose have thought any of these things through...) And the mighty Moses... who thought himself to be the one to deliver the nation of Israel... but no, it was... go first and be a lowly shepherd for a lifetime (i.e., 40 years), and learn a little humility before taking on that roll. Granted, lots of things have changed since back then. Other things? Maybe not so much. Things most affiliated with TWI never quite figured out.

Don't recognize whoever was on the far right (I presume some here do), but to say (about 5 min in) that "without the why, there is no believing" probably pins the tail on the donkey of what that whole dog & pony show was up to. Is it not clear, and plainly enough written in scripture, that it's love (not our intellect) that energizes believing? Well, that was it. I heard enough, and shut it off... (It's no different than it was 30 some years ago. Trying to live "the more abundant life"... not even realizing that it's his life, and not ours, that it's referring to.)

Nice one page summarization, Steve. Thanks. And thanks for bringing up the impact of hermeneutics when considering this whole matter. This last sentence of it stirred me to ponder on what it really meant... The only imperative directly associated with speaking in tongues is 1 Corinthians 14:39b, “do not forbid speaking in tongues.” Why use the word forbid if it's something that can't be stopped? (If one has the inherent ability, what can another do to stop it?) I found it interesting that the same word is used in Luke 11:52: Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

You sure pride yourself in wanting to think this is about you, or that you're "the problem" diligently and faithfully drawing out and exposing uneducated, illogical, and slithery mumpsimus. But it really isn't about you, Raf, or I would have simply walked away from this matter (even as I did a year ago). Given it might make more sense to some if addressed in some other way, the problem is a failure to accept the fact that the main reason and purpose of SIT simply isn't to bring forth or produce some objectively "testable" thing to "prove its spirituality." And if you (or anyone else) thinks it is, then I'm suggesting that it appears there's a problem with your hermeneutics (which is to say, how you're interpreting scripture.) However, you're so personally hung up and insistent upon it's "biblical meaning" being some kind of objectively testable proof to someone (or anyone) other than the individual doing it, that it seems that you've blinded yourself to any and all other possibilities. Which, strangely enough, may not be far removed from the very reason Paul wrote to the Corinthian church in an effort to set them straight about what it's purpose really was... as it was not designed nor intended to show or to prove their "spirituality" one to another (which they were evidently using it for.)

According to who or what ...PFAL? ...Hoyle? ...Raf? You have but one (and only one) criteria that you have all your trust and efforts pinned to. And anyone that is not a very highly trained expert in the field or art of linguistics essentially has no chance whatsoever at knowing or recognizing what is or isn't "genuine" aside from putting their complete trust and faith in another "more intelligent" man than themselves and becoming reliant on them to confirm (or deny) the truth and reality of it. Yeah, man.. that sure fits with the way God has operated throughout all history...

So is word of knowledge. Do you likewise think that some kind of objective proof exists or is required for it to be valid?

This is a link to the doctrinal thread the previous comments were posted in (around page 8 or 9.), which is likely the better place for any sort of (biblical) continuation.

The inference is, of course, that you don't have or see any uses for it aside from that. Which (as you already likely know), is not the same "effect" or benefits that I spoke of. However, I've given up trying to steer any further discussion of this towards a consideration of what effect or benefits Paul might have written in scripture about SIT. (None here appear to have any interest in or concern about that, as long as there's no "proof" of a language.) As stated once in a doctrinal thread (over a year ago), I believe it's an issue of hermeneutics. I don't know how to link to these posts over in the doctrinal side, but here they are: And the following post never received a response (that I know of):

Producing a language - which isn't understood, btw - is a benefit to be compared to healing or moving a mountain? That's just plain nuts! Who do you suppose benefits from that? How can that be? If you seriously want to get "intellectually honest," then do so, and really think about what you just said...

Fair question. How would anyone know, except by comparing it to what benefits other manifestations of the spirit produce? If if walks like a duck, talks like a duck... then in spite of an otherwise unseemly appearance, odds are, it's a duck.