TLC

Here's what I (absolutely) know is true, Raf. That (from my previous post)... "there is a change that occurs within the mind that allows for a new perspective on how 'reality' can be known and defined." Evidently what I know and perceive as being "real" is different than how you think of it.

Raf, the reason... and namely, the effect of it... is for my private prayer and relationship with the Lord. It is not, nor have I ever seriously thought of it as, anything but that. And if it has never failed in serving that purpose for over 40 years, I could care less whether you or anyone else thinks its a "language" that was or can be known by any man. Matter of fact, it's so "out there" on the scale of oddity, I'd be surprised if anyone (that's ever heard it) has ever thought it were a language, much less anyone being able to prove it was. So aside from what it does for and means to me... yeah, it's useless babble. Powerful... yet apparently useless. What a conundrum.

Perhaps it's this "while you were a believer" part that is so confusing. Can a person genuinely believe anything beyond what is (or can be) known by our five senses, or might it be limited to some form of mental ascension... an illusion, so to speak. In other words, they only "think" they believe it. What we believe is the cornerstone of reality (i.e., what we know is real.) Initially, Adam had a choice. But once he made that choice, there was no reversing or nullifying the effect of it. Which is why the essential criteria in this day and time for "a believer" is not whether one does or doesn't SIT. Nor is it whether one says or thinks they believe in God. The distinction is in whether one believes in the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. NOTHING about that "fits" with what science and/or our five senses tells us. Quite the opposite, in fact. But, once that "jump" (if it can be said or thought of as such) is made, there is a change that occurs within the mind that allows for a new perspective on how "reality" can be known and defined. Which will undoubtedly be seen or thought of as being crazy or insane by anyone not ever having experienced the same, deep, heartfelt commitment (or repentance, as the case may be.) SIT is little more that an afterthought. Or aftereffect, if you want. It's a mere little side dish. Way, way, WAY too much emphasis and significance given to it in PFAL, and in all TWI, to put it bluntly. Though, as much as that was, it still probably pales in comparison to the misplace emphasis that VPW and all TWI put on the "gift ministries." So, argue all you want about the lack of proof there is for "modern SIT" being the same as the SIT written about in scripture. Relatively speaking, I don't think it makes a hill of beans difference. If "the effect" of it equates to what is written of it in the Corinthian epistles, then there is no reason to give it any more thought or attention than what was given to those (spiritually weak, rather carnally minded) men of Corinth back then. Which, a great many Christian of today seem to have lost (or perhaps never had) any sort of reasonable or mature perspective on.

Me thinks you're biased by your experiences of skin-encapsulated mechanosensory receptors transmitting electrochemical signals to your brain.

It's as serious and straightforward as it gets, as it typically helps to identify and understand motive. Does a million bucks make someone into a better, more loving, or more godly person? If the signs, miracles, and wonders that were given weren't proof enough to persuade Israel to believe, then neither would any "proof" of the supernatural now suddenly end atheism.

What practical difference do you honestly think said confirmation (or proof) of the supernatural would make? (short answer to your question is, I don't believe that what I do is with my own ability, and I'm not impressed with it as if it were.)

Right. A different premise can, with no break in logic, result in a different perception of what is real and true. Thank you for recognizing and acknowledging the coherency and consistency of my previously stated thought, chockfull.

Then what difference does if make to you, Raf, whether or not tongues (or the effect of it) is the same now as it was in the early church if it didn't exist back then either?

Nice example of two dimensional, lineal thinking. Really goes outside the box. Not.

There is no "other discussion" because you won't (or can't) engage in it for whatever reason. Furthermore, your labeling of what you think it might be (were it to ever happen) likewise misses. If effectually they're the same, then whether or not they're exactly the same is irrelevant. Evidently that possibility eluded you... or maybe you were just trying to steer around it.

So, I guess no one cares to give any attention to these comments, nor respond to my previously posted question as to what benefit anyone might suppose is inherently associated with Paul's speaking "with tongues more than ye all"... You want to make the comparison to Sagan's dragon in the garage? Well then, what can or does this dragon do? Something unique or different perhaps? Or what is a reason or purpose for having a dragon in the garage? Why is this question not asked? Because if something is done which only a dragon in the garage can do, well... you can figure out the rest. Known or unknown, recognized or identifiable as a "language" or not... if it serves the same purpose and/or achieves the same benefits... does anything else about it really matter?

If so, then I'll accept it as that. Thank you for the clarification. When I have time, I'll return to this thread for further comment.

I didn't say the evidence was damned, I said it was either incomplete or faulty. But I guess you can't see the difference. Nor is it "wishful thinking" on my part (even if you can't see or think of it as anything but that.) But thanks for not spiking it. Certain other readers might see it differently.

This is what we call a "non-sequitur." It is when you connect two concepts as though one proves the other, although one doesn't actually prove the other. You know, I really don't appreciate your attributing that statement to me, Raf. It's not only disingenuous, but quite frankly, gives plenty of reason to question your intention in doing so.

lol... so now saying what I merely perceive to be the truth is trolling, and you can't handle it, and I'll get spiked for it. whatever...

My perspective is different, I've already made or disclosed that point (however it's said.) Because the premise I choose as the foundation for reason and logic differs from yours, you suppose and accept that your rational is good while mine is non-existent and/or bad. Perhaps if you could learn to see and think "outside the box" of your own limited perspective, you would at least recognize and acknowledge both the coherency and consistency of my stated thoughts.

It's not some claim that I originated, you already know that. Whether or not there will ever be an acceptable scientific substantiation of it, we don't know. If you want to take the position that it will never be substantiated, that's simply a choice you're making, perhaps based on "evidence thus far." I'm only making the point that whatever evidence you have thus far is not complete, finished, nor proven conclusive. If it happened, but (a) the "evidence" to date doesn't or can't verify it, it doesn't prove that it didn't happen. And if it did happen, but (b) the evidence to date indicates that didn't happen, then plainly there is something awry or wrong with said "evidence.

Of course it's a personal (subjective) means of establishing it. The verse doesn't say that it's His spirit bearing witness to the world. It's uniquely bearing witness to us (i.e., our spirit.) Do you (or anyone else here) honestly think that anything less than the experiencing of this really can, or ever will, establish (in your own mind) the reality of His presence? Seriously? Given the topic of this thread, I guess I didn't consider it a crime to suppose that any reference intended to point toward the Creator (whether spoken of as "the Christian God," Allah, a deist God, the creative universalism, or by any other variegated forms) should be (or needs to be) thought of and addressed separately. But if so, then pardon me. If your intention was (or is) to say that a "deist" God is something other than the God that I spoke of, then I would undoubtedly agree with you that no such god can be established. If none exists, then it's because your genetic research isn't complete or good enough. Because it happened. You've simply chosen to accept the boundaries of what other men have (thus far) reasoned to be there, while I do not.

???

Just didn't want to see this passed over so quickly or easily. What "benefit" do you suppose is inherently associated with Paul's speaking "with tongues more than ye all" ?

Well, I see and think about scripture from an entirely different vantage point, Raf. Whether this does or doesn't make much of any sense to you, I've had to learn to allow the Bible be it's own language. But it's not like one that Google translate (or any other translator) works for. It's like one that needs to be learned on it's own (with a lot of trial and error, so to speak.) No, I don't really know how the brain of young child learns its first language... but its learning like that, that I'm referring to. Maybe this doesn't make any sense at all to anyone else. Or maybe it does. I don't know much at times, aside from the unfortunate fact my brain seems to be wired different than a lot of other folks. It's a personal handicap that I always have to keep in mind when trying to communicate with others.

Raf, if God couldn't very well "establish" (i.e., prove beyond any and all doubt) who He was to Israel through all the signs, miracles and wonders over hundreds of years (of which perhaps only a mere fraction are actually recorded in scripture), why think any extension or continuation of it would bring about any different result with the people of today than it did for them?

Of course not, if you want it. Rom.8 [16] The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Given what is written in Romans 8:16, I disagree. However, aside from (or previous to) that experience (of Rom.8:16), I may have been inclined to think otherwise.

My comment was actually in response to what Raf said. (Perhaps I should have quoted him in my previous post.) I haven't thought about how it might relate to T-Bone's post.