Oakspear

Probably the same thing that would happen in Cleveland, or Aukland, or London...indifference. I doubt the Christians would listen to him any more than the Jews. Torah is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuternomy. The other parts of what we call the Old Testament are categorized into the prophets and the kethubim (other stuff)...at least that's what I thought

Some of you "experts" feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I Corinthians was written in the late 50's A.D., 57 maybe, while Acts was not written until the middle of the 60's, 64 A.D., I believe. Therefore, the uses of "Speaking in Tongues" in I Corinthians pre-date that which was written in Acts. The first is the "listing" of the gifts/manifestations and the second is another list which mixes what we in TWI thought of as the "gift ministries" with "manifestations" and other miscellany like "helps in governments". There is absolutely no description of tongues or its usage until I Corinthians 14:5-6 where interpretation of tongues is implied to be edifying to the church. It is strongly suggested that tongues are not something that anyone can understand, so it is not profitable or edifying to anyone not doing the speaking, but there is nothing said about the personal benefit to tongues. In 14:22 it says that tongues are a sign to them that believe not (nothing about "unbelieving believers").

Regarding Goey's posts: This is my biggest criticism of many PFAL fans. Your typical PFAL adherant looks at what Wierwille taught, declares that it makes sense, or looks into the King James, verifies that the verses are quoted accurately and is thereafter satisfied that "the truth" was taught. Some really ambitious PFALers will check out a concordance and look up a few Greek words. Any other interpretation is rejected mainly because it disagrees with Wierwille's interpretation. A good example of the sloppy (or perhaps deceptive) aspects of Wierwille's "research". "In the spirit" was equated with "speaking in tongues" because it bolstered Wierwille's position. Maybe it does mean speaking tongues, but there is no investigation into the term, no examination of scripture, just a statement that we, as a group, swallowed unquestioningly.

I never heard of that one. What was it about the album that p'o'd TWI?

The existance of abuses in other organizations in no way makes TWI's abuses "okay". In fact bringing them up often is a tactic of distraction. As Song Remains the Same used to say: "Just a thot"

snopes?

True George. Speaking in tongues frequently is an "ecstatic" experience, for people who are caught up in the emotion of their preceived connection with their god(s). Perhaps the early Christians were simply doing what other excited, newly converted religionists had done and ecstaticly spoke in tongues. later, biblical writers attepted to codify it and fit it into the big picture.

"You don't know me well enough to insult me" is a line I have used on occassion.

Indeed it does...and the heads up from you saved me considerable grief

the point was that they didn't make it once. The folks who killed Jesus, assuming that the gospels are accurate, lived about 2000 years ago.

Seriously, what's the point? I'm not just talking about TWI's perspective, but why is in the bible at all? All of the other supernatural or phenomenal occurences seem to have a purpose: miracles, healings, discerning of spirits, revelation, prophecy, etc. They all have an obvious and tangible benefit. They could all be observed & measured. What about tongues? Couldn't God have come up with a way of "building up the inner man" that didn't involve incomprehensible babbling? Sure, God could do whatever he wanted, but don't you assume that he makes sense?

The people who wrote the article didn't kill their "savior", nor did any modern Jews.

Like any other kind of turd...just froggier

While Wierwille never taught that SIT was a prerequisite for salvation, there were always people who drew their own conclusions; not Wierwille's fault.

On a couple of other threads currently floating around there are accusations that several posters weren't really in TWI, occassionally I think so of some of the "drive-bys" myself. And we all have posters who we "trust" and those who we don't. What's the difference? Usually we're anonymous, and even when not, it's often not a 100% certainty that folks are who they say that they are. Do we gravitate toward those who agree with us? Laugh at our jokes? Those we knew in the "real world"? What's your criteria?

Worth seeing.

Thanks everybody...and happy birthday to your son, Lifted Up, who I remember well.

I rarely discount someone's personal experience. What I question on occassion is the source or the reason. Someone was sick yesterday, today they're not. Kind of hard to argue with that. What you'll hear me disputing is that it was prayer or chanting or energy work or Penta water that necessarily did it. It is my observation that folks will credit whatever their "higher power" is for the good things in their lives. Christians credit God, reiki practicioners credit reiki, Wiccans credit the goddess, Art Bell credits aliens! Often the results are indistinguishable from each other or from random chance.

Just for the record, since I started what I thought would be an innocent, fun, thread that turned into a food fight: I don't think country music is horrible, although I'm not a big fan of either top 40 country or Way Productions country I don't think that Way Productions musicians were bad, most seemed pretty competant at the very least, some were downright brilliant IMHO High Country Caravan was hokey, and was infected by interference by non-musicians who couldn't even recite a poem, which detracted from whatever playing and songwriting talent those folks had. I like bluegrass, I like some forms of country. I dislike mainstream country. In the movie Be Cool they put together a music video that was supposed to be bad. When I watched it I was reminded of High Country Caravan.

I don't think that healing is something that one can corece from God or the universe or the goddess or whatever. It's not something that can be invoked by formulaic praying or meditating or imbibing the correct nutrients. It's part and parcel of the cycle of life and death and renewal. Be glad when you get it, chill out when you don't

She hasn't posted in a while, her handle is "Oakmom"

Not the message or the lyrics themselves, dmiller, just the cheesy production values Have you ever seen Be Cool?

Allan, don't misunderstand me, I have no problem with people who believe all or part of PFAL. Some of the people here at GS who I have met personally and have a lot of respect for still hold to PFAL, at least in part. What I have a problem with is mindless acceptance of anything, including PFAL. Nobody wants a complete statement of beliefs from you. But you spend a lot of time here at GS bashing and belittling other folks' beliefs. The sum total of your reasons for this is that they are different than your beliefs; and the basis of your beliefs is that VP Wierewille said so. Or so it appears from your posts.

I was watching "Be Cool" tonight and checked out the special features section where The Rock as the gay bodyguard Elliot Wilhem sings "You Ain't Woman Enough To Take My Man". All I could think of was High Country Caravan

Must be nice not to have to think about what one believes.