Raf

You guys are mixing topics. This thread is about extended interpretation of tongues. The OTHER thread is about the exaggerated "raising of the dead" story where the guy was never dead and nothing supernatural is even alleged to have happened except in the working brain of a man in a coma.

So often these stories depend a great deal on the recipient's lack of knowledge of the terms that are being used. I glossed over all that stuff, not realizing how key it was in debunking this nonsense story. The thing that sealed it for me was, the writer of the article did not consult a single doctor. Heaven only knows why he thought the article was worth writing, but he did and that's his call, and as publisher it is his right to print it. That doesn't make it credible.

Ok, so, without the modhat: Testimonials are CLAIMS. They are not evidence for those claims. People need to understand the difference. If I tell you I stayed home from work today because I was sick, the amount of evidence you need to support that claim is minimal. There's nothing extraordinary about the claim. Therefore, there is nothing extraordinary about the amount of evidence you require to believe it. If I were to tell you I stayed home from work today because last night I was abducted by space aliens, you would demand proof. And it had better be good. My claim, by itself, would be inadequate (to say the least) as proof. I had someone look me straight in the eye and tell me she had HIV. Then she looked me straight in the eye a couple of years later and praised God because it was GONE! Hallelujah! I relied on this person to help me understand things that only someone with HIV would know. Made me look like an idiot. After a while it hit me: she never had HIV. Given the set of facts, it was the explanation that is most probable. Testimonials are not evidence of themselves. By all means, draw inspiration from them if you will. But when you start presenting them as evidence of their own veracity, buckle up. Immabout to get rude.

Oh, i missed it. ModTheOtherGuy has already been here.

Except if you're me, there's no way to distinguish. I'll discuss with ModTheOtherGuy and we'll figure it out.

One more thing: Just because an article is printed in a newspaper does not mean it has met journalistic standards. This article contains ZERO independent verification of the claims being made. The writer merelvrepeats unverified claims. Don't use the professionn's standards to enhance the credibility of the claim when the profession's standards were not followed

Catol's account is the claim It is not evidence for that claim. I already have her number. Do not post it here.

Traxx Just kidding. Traxx was seen by more people.

By the way, EVERYTHING we know about Gary's medical condition comes to us second hand. Do we have the expert analysis of his doctor? No. Do we have the case studied by independent medical experts? No. Did Hugh Laurie suddenly have an epiphany leading into the last commercial break? No. To say this story lackscredibility is to be generous. It's one thing to consider his tale as a matter of faith. But you're going to need a truckload more evidence if you want to pass it off as an actual "miracle." It doesn't pass the first test of a miracle: it does not defy explanation. Guy fell into a coma [allegedly: we have ZERO verification even THAT took place. But let's assume it did since it is not an extraordinary claim and therefore does not require extraordinary evidence]. It was dire. His heart might have stopped a couple of times. He was revived [by medical attention; the story doesn't even ALLEGE a miracle here]. He was under constant medical care and supervision. He recovered. Would he have recovered without divine intervention? Who knows? Would he have recovered without medical intervention? Again, who knows? [Ans: you. you know]. When he awakened, he made claims about what he experienced that can readily be explained by the fact that he has a functioning brain. Look, if you want me to believe a miracle took place here, you gotta at LEAST alllege a miracle!

there is no evidence gary died. there is less than no evidence that gary was dead for two weeks. testimonies are CLAIMS. Every religion has adherents with claims. All magically verify their own religions. imagine that. His recovery would have certainly been miraculous had it not been accompanied by nonstop 24/7 medical care. Thank Doc he lived to tell his "miraculous" tale.

p. 10 http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00028302/00597?search=herald+=advocate

So I found the article. The first thing that should be noted, is that the story does not say this person was dead. It specifically says he was in a coma. Yes, it says he died several times. Technically speaking, that is not true. But that is not an uncommon journalistic convention, to say someone died on the operating table and was revived. In real hospital rooms, you are pronounced dead exactly one time. After that, they stopped working on you. Funny how that works. So this guy never actually died in any real sense of the word. However, he was in grave mortal Danger. So he hallucinated. Big deal.

Not so fast. My initial search turned out to be inadequate. If you go to that paper's web site, you can't find anything about the reporter or those subjects. That paper doesn't have a reporter by that name. That's because he's the publisher. I asked. So now I'm asking whether they are catalogued by Nexis (the journalist's Google) and if not, whether there was an article published on that date by that writer covering those subjects. I will advise.

I have a truckload of early Way teaching tapes on mp3 if anyone wants access. Name the teaching: I'll find it and send it.

Carlton your (alcoholic) doorman was never seen on the series (he's in a cartoon pilot episode that went nowhere) Rhoda is Jewish. Lou Grant was not a sitcom, plus I'm sure if Lou DID get married, it wasn't a big deal. Rhoda's wedding was a BIG deal. ("Maybe you'll get it after all" was a subtle allusion to the MTM theme song). Rhoda's sister is played by Julie Kavner (Marge Simpson), which would have been the next clue. Their mother wa played by Nancy Walker, also famous for Bounty paper towel commercials. You're up!

A google search for the headline: ""Gary Laude 'said he went to heaven during illness" Turns up this page. This one. The one you're reading.

Carol and Gary Laude do live in Michigan. Let's see if I can't get any closer...

No Jim Kelly at that paper. No Carol Laude. No Caoral Laude. No Gary Laude. No Laude at all.

For the record, it is not a contemporary series of I Love Lucy. It was much later. Maybe much much, but certainly not much much much.

Big time. Then again, maybe you'll get it after all.

Jim, if you have the date of the story, the name of the paper, and the names of anyone ANYONE involved (like, say, the person who wrote the story), I can hunt it down. This is not.hard.at.all. The notion that journalists would not be interested in verifiable miracles taking place at hospitals is absurd on its face. And someone who was dead for TWO WEEKS only to hpp back up and ask for a filet-o-fish would have made international headlines. People here are being way too nice. This story is horse manure.

It is not. Soap is not a spinoff. The main character gets married early in the series. Because she was so popular from the parent series, and because it was a crossover event, it was one of the most watched tv comedy episodes ever. At the time, only the birth of Little Ricky on I Love Lucy drew more viewers.

This was the first television sitcom to feature a Jewish lead character. There had been Jewish characters before, but they were always supporting. This is a spinoff. In the original series, the main character had a sister named Debbie. Debbie is never mentioned in the spinoff. Though their characters are Jewish, the lead actress and her mother are* not. (The actress who played the mother is dead: she was also famous for appearing in TV commercials for a common household product). Foster Brooks was approached to voice one character, but turned it down.

Oh hello.

Do not assume and "either/or." Problem solved