Raf

No, a million bucks does not make you a better person. Sheesh, it's like you deliberately miss the point of the significance of objectively proving the supernatural. Like that's some small, insignificant feat. There were no signs, miracles and wonders given to Israel. Those are made up stories, as reality-based as the myths of Perseus, Pandora, Hercules and Icarus. To call them miracles is to call them history, and they are not history. The evidence that would be there if they WERE history doesn't exist, and it is not merely an absence of evidence, but evidence of absence. And, uh, yeah, proof of the supernatural -- objective, indisputable proof -- would actually "end" atheism, since lack of belief in the supernatural based on lack of evidence for it is a major reason people are atheist. It all boils down to this: You are making a claim, Speaking in Tongues. All I'm asking you to do is prove your claim, and all you're doing is coming up with one excuse after another why you can't. You can't prove your claim because your claim is false. You're faking it. You KNOW you're faking it at this point. But for some reason it makes you feel better to act as if the burden of proving you're faking it is mine and what difference does it make anyway. It makes all the difference between having confidence that you are doing what God promised you can do (which has Biblical definitions and logical repercussions) or you knowing full well that you're faking it as surely as I was. I'm done arguing with nonsensical arguments. Document your language or STFU already.

I'm only behind on that Flash episode and three behind on Legends. Arrow... haven't caught the 2nd half of the season.

Okay.

Ok. I still have "Star Crossed" to watch for Supergirl, and I'm two episodes behind on Legends. Have not started Iron Fist yet. But for the record: High marks to Daredevil season 1 and season 2, Jessica Jones and Luke Cage. Even if Iron Fist ends up being a weak link, The Defenders looks like it stands every chance of being a winner.

Far behind on Arrow. SHIELD... let's just say I'm looking forward to catching it on Netflix. Not watching powerless. Should I regret that?

My name begins with the letter R. Disagreeing with the premise that my name begins with the letter R results in wrong conclusions. I don't see how you can disagree with the premise that my name begins with R. But if that's what you choose to do, I'm not going to stop you. However, if you expect me to somehow agree to disagree on whether my name begins with R, and allow your conclusions to carry equal weight with my conclusions, then no. My conclusions are based on the fact that my name begins with R, and your conclusions are wrong. If you insist on maintaining that position, FINE. I have no reason to argue with it. But ok. Now, you come along and say my name doesn't begin with R, and that it's small minded of me to fail to see things your way, and I'm just going to give you funny looks and tell you your premise is nonsense. Because my name starts with R. There's really no debate about it, and your false premise does not carry the same weight as my premise, which is supported by the evidence.

TBone, the Disney Cruise was the best, wasn't it? I enjoyed the bejezus out of my family's!

It's almost impossible to believe this is an honest question. What good would it do to objectively prove the supernatural? He seriously asked that question. First off, it would win the person who proved it a million bucks. Secondly, it would in all likelihood end atheism for good. Other than that, can't think of a thing. How can anyone take this question seriously? "What practical difference" would it make. Sheesh.

That's nice, but there is no evidence, not even the tiniest scrap, that you're doing anything that you cannot do with your own ability. You can credit God if you want. You can credit Stan Lee or Siegel and Schuster for all I care. But until you produce something that cannot be explained naturally, then the fact that it impresses you only shows that you're easily impressed. You are not doing anything I didn't do when I faked it. Because you're faking it too. If you weren't, you'd be producing a language. You're not. So you're not.

Buffy didn't JTS with its musical episode, iirc

LEGO BATMAN!

Well, it seems from previews that we're finally gonna get those obvious GLEE connections working with a musical episode of Flash. It's about time. Jeesh. (FYI: Flash and Supergirl both had major roles on Glee, and Victor Garber (Legends of Tomorrow) was Jesus in the Godspell movie. And Mayor Shin in The Music Man remake, though he had no songs there.

Oops. I was a few steps behind. Good.

Hmm. If only there were a giveaway clue...

I didn't say I would be wrong about YHWH. Just about God. ;)

In the ex-twi "fold," I see plenty of people who try to hold onto the good of what they left behind while discarding the bad. I see plenty of people redefine for themselves what it means to be Christian and choose for themselves a more excellent way. I see a few who choose other, non-Christian religions. And I see a few who reject religion entirely. This is a discussion forum about TWI. By its very nature, it's going to lead us all to an inflated sense of the ex-twi experience. But I suspect if we think TWI's result is any different than those who leave other organizations, we'd be in for a polite awakening. Plenty, PLENTY of books and websites for former members of other Christian groups will show similar breakdowns. We're not alone. We're not unique. WordWolf and I concur on this: I speak without having conducted even an INformal survey. :)

You need to get out more. :)

Ok, this is going to sound strange coming from me, but I'm going to defend VPW on a point. Yes, I know who I'm going to sound like for you GSC old-timers, but bear with me. I do think we have a case here of our memories of what VPW said being in conflict with what he actually said. Now, I'm going by my own memory here, and my VPW books are somewhere in a dump in southern Florida, or hopefully have been recycled into something useful, like an egg carton, but... I don't recall Wierwille ever saying that no one can fake SIT per se. What he said about SIT, in my memory, was that it could not be counterfeited. That is, if a person speaks in tongues, it IS of God. Our debate here has been whether anyone is speaking in tongues. My contention is we did not and you are not. If you were, you'd be producing a language. I believe Wierwille would agree with that definition. Namely, if you say you SIT and you produce a language, that's God at work, because the devil cannot counterfeit it. That's why when Peter saw the household of Cornelius speak in tongues, he knew right away that they were saved. Because the devil cannot counterfeit it. How did he know they weren't faking it? Doesn't say, but why would they? It's not like he tried to lead them into tongues. It's not like he said, ok, here's how it works... It was spontaneous. They just did it. And just watching them do it was enough for Peter to conclude this was genuine. And since the devil can't counterfeit it, then that makes it of God, which makes them saved. Voila! So, yes, Wierwille said it can't be counterfeited. But I honestly don't remember him saying it can't be faked. He himself admitted to faking it once, but that was a little different. That's my memory. Yours may differ. If anyone has a RTHST or Green Book handy, let me know. [I know what you're thinking. If the household of Cornelius speaking in tongues was good enough for Peter, why isn't it good enough for me? Simple. George Washington convinced his father of his personal integrity by confessing to chopping down the cherry tree, but that's not enough to convince me of George Washington's personal integrity. If you know why in the latter case, you know why in the former].

Ok, we cross-posted. I see your peace-out and raise you a best wishes!

Whether a testable claim is being made is not a matter of personal feelings. It is a matter of what the Bible claims is produced in SIT. Because we disagree about THAT, debating it is pointless for us. We identified that impasse years ago. I have elsewhere stated my case for why I believe the Biblical claim is consistent with how I present it (move over to the main doctrinal area for Word Wolf's most recent thread on it, which has links to the prior threads). Nothing I see in the counterargument impresses me to alter what I believe to be the Biblical case for SIT.

I disagree, Chockfull. As a participant, not as a moderator. Certain posters are attempting to deflect the discussion instead of contribute to it, and I consider that trolling.

Fair enough, Chockfull.

And just to be abundantly clear, I CAN be right about SIT but wrong about God. I do not see how I can be wrong about SIT but right about God. I mean, I suppose it's possible, but I don't see it.

But if you make a testable claim and follow through, then you have something that cannot be answered in natural terms. You don't though. You made the testable claim, but when the time came to follow through, you redefined the claim to make it untreatable, allowing you the privilege of making it an issue of faith. Biblical SIT is not a matter of faith. It's a matter of making a claim that can be objectively demonstrated and evaluated by a disinterested third party. The notion that it's untestable comes from a repeated failure to identify a language in any sample of SIT, ever, except of course for those cases where the key participants are now anonymous, on the other side of the planet, or both.

The basis for discussion remains that a testable claim is made. If the claim is proved, I am wrong. If the claim is not proved, I may still be wrong, but we'll have to use other means to determine it. That is why I keep saying (and Word Wolf keeps demonstrating by example) that you can agree with me on this topic and remain a committed Christian. And I'm not taking the bait: We have gone over what the Biblical claim is too many times to come back to a debate about it again. If you don't agree that the Bible promises a known human language, you need not. But I personally consider that a debate victory, to see a clear biblical promise retreated from with such enthusiasm that it turns an obvious, testable claim to an ethereal generator of warmth and fuzziness that cannot be disproved any more than the Mormons bosom warmth.