Raf

The following continues TLC's post #356 So I rephrased things here, and asked another question (relating to my previous questions, none of which have ever received a response): But then comes this concession: Yet, here we are, still entertaining your skepticism, and you still making sure that your point stays in front and on top of everything (and everyone) else. So, I back off and try to highlight something that I see as being a major issue, in this post: And try heading back towards by earlier questions with this post: But, no. Things get steered right back to your invisible dragon: So I try this approach:: Which you immediately cast aside: And you again put forward your apparently cast in cement position with this: So I bypass that and try rephrasing some of my earlier questions with this post: (part 3, continues in next post...)

I don't know why the formatting didn't work on your post to me, TLC, but it doesn't appear to be something I can fix even with my modhat. So, on to substance: The "new perspective" you claim to be offering is old. We've been through it. And we'll go through it again, I suppose. But you'll be doing it without me. I fail to see the relevance of the serpent's conversation with Eve. Some of WW's criticism did not appear to be aimed at you. I think you missed that. Some of it was. You can call me "proud" all you want, but I note that you still have not offered a Biblical refutation of my position. You don't have to bow out. I already have. I'm responding because you addressed your post to me specifically. I promise, if you offer something that causes me to reconsider, I will do so. But saying "What about the serpent's conversation with Eve?" does not qualify, in my opinion. I think I figured out how to fix your formatting. Let's see if it works...

I suppose. Does it matter when Jesus taught the story of the Prodigal Son that the story he told probably never took place? He was illustrating forgiveness and the father's desire to have his son come home. So what if the story never actually happened. Now, if someone were to say The Prodigal Son was Jim Smith, and this proves Jim Smith had the favor of his dad over his brother, then we're talking about a different use of the story. Then it MATTERS whether it actually took place. But for the purpose of what Jesus taught, it doesn't matter. Make sense?

Maybe I'm soft, but I don't see a problem with inventing anecdotes to demonstrate a point. It's only a problem if you somehow assert the veracity of the anecdote to prove something demonstrably false.

Two ways to approach this topic. 1. When the Bible says Jesus rose from the dead, is it a literal claim or a metaphorical one? 2. Regardless of the Bible's claim, is the resurrection of Jesus a historical fact? That is, did it actually happen, literally? The first approach belongs in doctrinal. The second belongs in Questioning Faith. The selection of videos to illustrate the question seems to indicate, to me, that the second question is the intended question. Accordingly, this thread will be moved.

I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't re: policing "on topic" posts. Either I'm persnickety and legalistic or I'm letting the conversation drift because I'm a mod. Tell me how to win when I'm wrong no matter what I do. So I chose to err on the side of flexibility and allow the conversation to flow naturally. And I was explicit about it. And I still caught flack about it (from someone who clearly had not read what I said about it). This thread is about what the Bible teaches about SIT. It is not about challenging the practice. There's a thread in About the Way that challenges the practice. Waysider's question about Paul and the validity of Corinthian SIT probably belongs in questioning faith, since it does not necessarily accept the Bible's answer as authoritative. Now, I can blow up all these issues and make them separate threads, or just let the conversation flow freely here. I choose the latter, by apparent consensus. But I won't lose sleep if another mod jumps in. I'm not requesting it, and neither has anyone else.

MRAP, there appears to be a thinly disguised criticism from you aimed at me for going off topic. I agree with you. I appear to be the only one concerned about it, until you came along. So here's the deal. If you have a problem with a post, hit report and the mods will deal with it. That's the grown up way to handle it. The juvenile way to handle it is to come along and thank the people who stayed on topic, ignoring the fact that the off-topic digression was openly discussed, BY ME, and no one who actively participated in the thread objected.

My apologies, chockfull. My statement was in response to an accusation of myopia, not intended to pick fights with those who agree to disagree.

Once desperation sets in, I suppose any excuse for why you're not producing what the Bible plainly says you will becomes credible.

Exploring more is fair game. Restating that which has already been addressed and refuted is not. If "no man understands" is a blanket statement, then Acts 2 is a lie and all anecdotal evidence is Biblically invalid. It's not a blanket statement. There. Said it AGAIN. Who needs it said an umpteen and first time?

You think this is a bar room brawl? Hahahahaha!

I'm just going to inject one thought. To ask about I Corinthians 14:2 is to admit not having read the thread. It gets tiresome answering the same questions repeatedly. In the same vein, an observation was made about certain posts being off-topic. That observation was made in a way that made it clear the observer had not read the thread. THAT is a good answer to WHY SO TESTY? And it us not Directed at you, TLC. At least, I don't think it is.

Clarification: my "coach" and does not remember saying the words I attributed to him the first time I spoke in tongues. We agree that either he or I can be mistaken. So I present it as memory that may be flawed, not as fact.

The correct thing to do when you have never heard of a term is look it up, not dismiss it. There is more evidence for "spiritual anuse" than there is for spirits.

I think my ability to keep my cool is just about at a non-functional level, so I will be bowing out for the time being. If it's temporary (I AM exhausted), I'll be back soon. Otherwise, see you when you've documented a language. Djbp!

Context of the cited quote: "The "words" that the Holy Spirit breathes into our hearts are not in any human language. It is as we translate/interpret/articulate those feelings (dabarim) into the language we were taught as children that the "words" become linguistic artifacts." The problem with that, of course, is the Bible talks about speaking in TONGUES, and TONGUES in the Bible are languages, not spirit-imprints on our hearts that get articulated in otherwise meaningless sounds. If you didn't say codes, fine. Someone did, either here or on another thread. Paul's readers would have dropped dead of shock if someone tried to say glossa meant something other than language. I went through every usage in the Bible to document this, and we're still arguing about it. I said it before, and I'll say it again: the only way you can make modern SIT genuine is to distort the Biblical meaning of glossa so that it no longer means what it obviously does now and obviously did then. If we disagree, FINE. We disagree ON DOCTRINE. And that's not something I will waste another pixel arguing.

"This is how speaking in tongues can genuinely be speaking by the Spirit of God even if it DOES NOT PRODUCE a recognizable human language." You wrote that on another thread, Steve. There is not a scrap of BIBLICAL support for that statement.

No matter how hard you try to get glossa To refer to something other than a human language, even going to the extent of accusing me of distorting what Paul wrote, you will never be able to demonstrate that it is anything other than a human language while still resorting to the Bible. The Bible's use of the term is consistent.

I first heard "Easter Egg" as an item on a movie's DVD that wasn't on the menu. You would literally have to hunt for it, click on exactly the right spot, and BOOM! a hidden video. There are some great ones in the Lord of the Rings extended edition DVDs.

Probably because they were going for funny, not convincing. I agree that some overlap is unavoidable, and I recognize that we are dealing with the revival of long-dormant threads. But Doctrinal was set up to protect doctrinal discussions from this kind of digression, and to protect other threads from a doctrinal digression. No harm done. No one is complaining. But if someone did, he would be right.

The short answer is, it keeps conversations focused. The fact that I faked it, and my belief that others did too, has nothing to do with what the Bible teaches about speaking in tongues.

WordWolf, stop reading. WordWolf, stop reading. WordWolf, stop reading. WordWolf, stop reading. WordWolf, stop reading. A Legion ring. A glimpse of Supergirl, a version of Green Arrow that looked a little off, Jonah Hex, John Wesley Shipp's Flash (THAT was awesome). I also liked the numbers on Barry's speed dial, but why would he know these people, and why would they be on his speed dial, if he's not the Flash in Earth 2? Diana, Bruce, Hal. Why would Earth-2's Barry Allen know these people? Speaking of which, on Earth-2, Zoom is NOT: Ronnie, Cisco, Harrison Wells, Barry or Joe. Other possibilities? Eddie Thawne and... shudder... Henry Allen!

Ok, but the issue of proving it is actually ancillary to what the Bible actually says it is and what it produces. I think that was the original purpose of this thread. I suppose questions about whether it's still available or possible for believers today would also be on topic here, as long as we stick to "what does the Bible say?" as the criteria. But "prove you're doing it" or "disprove I'm doing it" is a discussion for elsewhere. As I said, I was answering a question. Then again, no one seems to be complaining about incorporating that question here. As a mod, if someone were to complain about it, I would have to agree that such discussions are out of bounds here. They're fair game elsewhere.

No. It would, at best, give you a philosophical foundation for believing in said dragon. But it would not be evidence-based.

Word Wolf, don't we owe that guy money? I mean, he never asked for it, but morally?