WordWolf

[Actually, by the rules of formal discussion and debate, this is simple. The subject is as follows: Side A: "Modern SIT is the same thing as Biblical SIT- a supernatural thing impossible to do without supernatural assistance." (I might also call that "Pentecost SIT", or "original SIT.") Side B: "Modern SIT is nothing like Biblical SIT- it is something any person can do, and those doing it THINK they are doing something that requires supernatural assistance like Biblical SIT, when they are not." Thus, Side B is stating, simply put, that Side A is making an extraordinary claim that has been unproven. Side A is making an extraordinary claim that must be proven if it is to stand. It's the same thing when some people claim Astronauts walked on the Moon. Side B claims they did not, so Side A then has to prove the Astronauts DID. Claims about evidence being faked or news reports being faked are secondary to the initial claim. (If they DID walk on the Moon and that's proven, nobody cares if someone faked a news report about a real event.) Therefore, Raf has provided evidence that supports the idea that all modern SIT is not what is claimed. However, he doesn't HAVE to do that- his side can be represented just as well by saying "Prove the claim." However, he's shown why the claim should be doubted-as if any claim shouldn't be required to be proven to some degree, partly because all of us at one time DIDN'T doubt it. Perhaps I skipped over something. Raf posted-over 100 times- that "modern SIT is not a language" AND "that is a proven fact and undisputed"? I'd gotten the impression that he keeps asking for evidence TO dispute that, evidence that modern SIT IS a language. That's your claim, I for one would be thrilled to see some hard evidence of it. I really do WANT to agree with your position, but there seems to be nothing to support that stance. I can't, in good faith, take a position when I can find evidence disputing it and no evidence supporting it.

It would certainly end the discussion and produce a slam-dunk for one side. The other side, by definition, can't prove a negative, so they can't produce a slam-dunk. What they CAN do is show that there's evidence for the negative, and no evidence for the positive. That's already happened here. So, we have one side saying "modern CLAIMS of SIT are nothing of the kind. They are free vocalization, and are produced by people who were taught they're doing the original SIT, want to do the original SIT, and care about godly things. So, they want to believe the 2 are the same, and were taught they are the same. So, they believe they are the same. However, there's no evidence to support this belief." That side's shown that there's evidence to support this, and there seems to be none supporting the claim that they ARE the same. That means it's up to the other side to either say "Based on the evidence, I'm forced to agree, or at least withdraw from the discussion since I can't honestly refute them" or "They are the same, and I shall provide the proof as follows". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

That's the next question. He gave no source, so that's not so much a "quote" as a "rumor", though, so I want to know if he made it up or if I can see it's legitimate. Further, there's occasional wikipedia vandalism, so I wanted to check if it was legitimately posted THERE if it was ever there. THEN I'd like to know what relevance it has to this discussion-if any.

"quote from wikipedia" How about at least telling us what page that was from so we can find it in the original without a long search for the relevant paragraph on a dozen related pages? If you tried, you could post a direct link to the page, but you can post its name without any skill at posting.

No, saying that he did his own singing told me who it is. "Go to commercial! Go to commercial! Cheer if you love DYNAMO! ================== Ok, now who else was in the movie. I can't remember what movies Richard Dawson did, and I don't know if Dweezil Zappa did anything else. And so on. So, I'm going with the obvious connection. Arnold Schwarzenegger Twins D.... Oops, skipped a step. THE RUNNING MAN Arnold Schwarzenegger Twins

Ok, I checked and confirmed I was correct, so we can move on. ================================== "I used to rule the world. Seas would rise when I gave the word. Now in the morning, I sleep alone, Sweep the streets I used to own. I used to roll the dice Feel the fear in my enemy's eyes. Listen as the crowd would sing: "Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!""

I'm a big fan of a lot of positive things. I'm a critic of sycophantic advertisements or outright lies. Actually, I wandered by at that moment and you REQUESTED responses. Now that you have them, you're upset because you didn't get the response you WANTED. And there's that FICTION again that it was something "GOOD." There's plenty "GOOD" in cyberspace and I can tell the difference. I have a life. If you'll check your dates, one of your posts I responded to recently was months or years old. I happened across it recently. Have I become your enemy because I tell you the truth? Heh. "Ï want your honest opinions. Unless you disagree with me-then I want people to ignore your opinion."

BTW, chockful.... In case you're wondering if Raf is being fair with you... I asked him earlier to take it down a notch or 2. Initially, he disagreed, but obviously he reconsidered, since for several days he's been VERY nice about all this. He took it down so many notches I can't see where it fell, so to speak. In other words, I've been monitoring how nice he's been posting, and he's been a lot nicer with you than you have with him, which is not what I was expecting. Please take a few deep breaths, wait and come back to the thread, and please reconsider there might be nicer ways to make the same points. You've been disagreeing with him, but you can disagree without being "disagreeable." It weakens your position in the eyes of the readers if you're responding to his points with name-calling. Honestly, I'd LIKE to agree with you, but you need to bring more substance to the table and less reacting before I can even consider it. You're not giving me any reason to agree.

The third one is a plagiarized ripoff. vpw was NOT the first person to preach on The Red Thread, and it was taught better by the person who actually studied and produced it. The second one might actually have something, as it isn't just photocopies of someone else's work. (At least, not at first glance.) The first one is silly. It's got a highly fictionalized account of vpw's life on it, with many details wrong AS REPORTED BY HIM. However, it sounds like it was written by someone who thought vpw had an "OVERabundance of brains and brawn" and "where he walked, the earth shook." That's the one that thought that pfal and vpw's stuff replaced the Bible. Those are my INITIAL feelings on this. If I have time later, I may itemize the gross fictionalizations and blatant lies and contrast them with what is known and how it is known.

You can select the option for "another English version" and post about the version. Since you brought it up, is that version louder than other versions?

I think it's KANSAS who did "Carry On My Wayward Son."

A point that can be missed is that people who insist twi had it correct seem to be the ones saying that to question SIT IN THE TWI STYLE is to question the Bible, Jesus Christ, etc, and everyone else is saying it's a separate doctrine that has no bearing on the salvation of billions of Christians in history and the present. Whether or not there is real SIT, the assertion is that the twi style itself was education in, and practice of, how to COUNTERFEIT the actual experience of SIT, with social reinforcement filling in the gaps. (We all wanted to SIT, we were told it was fantastic, we were told this is how it's done, all our friends wanted us to SIT, we wanted to SIT, so when we put the twi counterfeit into practice, we were eager to believe it was the genuine and not the counterfeit, and our friends believed the same.) Whether or not that's true, the evidence points that way. All of that's a separate question of "Is there real SIT today that's not the same as twi style" and "Is the Bible correct" and so on. Those are matters for Doctrinal and best left there. I hope to chat about it with the gang here later when there's time.The "real SIT" part, not the other part.)

Thanks, both of you. I'll give them some respectful attention ASAP. Here's what I've got. A) Buy a bag or box of earplugs. B) Try to develop a routine eventually so the kid gets a sense of when to sleep. C) Movement seems to help, so pacing with the kid often works. D) If it's colic, simethicone is the only thing that will help. Dr will advise about a few drops in the formula or milk across the day/night. E) I've heard driving around is helpful for that. Walking a carriage is hrlpful. F) Of course, check for clean diaper, thirst, etc. G) If all else fails, you have to wait it out. Keep the earplugs in and try to entertain yourself. The kid may actually cry for a while, take a breath to cry more, then suddenly fall asleep while inhaling. (It's like a sitcom when that happens.)

Correct, of course.

I know chockfull keeps insisting that 2 posters comments make up some sort of "proof", at least to his satisfaction. (BTW, chockfull, I'd like to think you're right, but I haven't seen a decent case for it, and the case for the other side seems pretty strong.) Which 2 posters does this refer to? IIRC, one was Socks. Does anyone have a link to the posts where their stories took place? I'd like to go over them myself and see if I'd find their accounts constituting "proof" or not.

Freddy Krueger kills the director of his movie, the actor who plays him, and other members of the cast, then he himself goes on to kill teenagers in their dreams while they sleep.

Since he said Sam Jackson, it's obviously not the British agents of 1961 or 1998. Sam Jackson's playing "Nick Fury" in the Marvel adaptation movies. So, Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, Hulk... those Avengers, 2012.

A murderer kills teens in their dreams- then breaks the fourth wall and kills the actor playing him, the director of his movie, and others who worked on it.

12 Angry Men in Black And I was hoping to answer the previous one about "A Time to Kill a Mockingbird." BTW, nice one.

Correct! The original, with the Rat Pack, and Sinatra as Danny Ocean, IIRC. Got it just before I posted a quote about there being 11 of them. And Sammy Davis Jr's comment about knowing how his skin color would come in handy someday while sitting next to someone blacking his face.

"Why waste those cute little tricks that the Army taught us just because it's sort-of peaceful now?" "Hello. This is a recording. You've dialed the right number, now hang up and don't do it again. " "I'm so drunk, I don't think I could lie down without holding on!" " I can't do it. I've got my wife to think of." "Think of her rich." "Think of me dead." "You'll miss my wedding!" "Mother, I have never missed one of your weddings. "Yes, you did. My first one." "Going down." "Going down." "Where they serve the drinks." "To the bar." "Oh, Danny. What a prize you are. The only husband in the world who'd proposition his own wife." " If it's so fool-proof, why hasn't somebody done it yet?" "Same reason nobody's gone to the moon yet - no equipment." "And we're equipped."

Close enough- "Ïndependence Day the Earth Stood Still."

I see them, but the Reading Room is for links, not discussion. The other 2 address specific sections and I don't want to pull them all over the NT (and OT). I won't mind pasting from them into another thread, however.

I kept not having time to post, so I THOUGHT I'd joined pages ago. ============================= A science fiction flick. An alien and android come to tell the Earth to clean up its act so it won't be considered a threat to other planets. But the warning comes too late- OTHER aliens attack that summer! Major cities are hit, but the survivors will fight back. The alien will help-he's been living as a human when this began. (This got tough because I'm trying to include 2 versions of 1 movie in with a different movie, to cover more ground. That meant some details have to be a bit vague.)

I like the whole process of working through this and trying to come to conclusions. As time permits (for me certainly and for others I'd expect), I'd like to go a step further in the Doctrinal forum. I'd like to go over the verses overtly discussing speaking in tongues, and I'd like to go over the verses that are claimed to be discussing speaking in tongues. I think we can do slowly, deliberately, and cautiously. I think we can do a respectful job and get down to some specifics, clearing out some things we THOUGHT the verses said, and getting clear on what the verses DO say. I don't know what the results will be, but I for one am overdue for such a journey, and I think at least one of you might want to come along for the process as well as the results. (Getting there can be the most fun part of these things.)