Raf

I would be interested in seeing those same "brain wave" studies measuring what the brain is doing during interpretation and prophesy. If the part of your brain that controls conscious thought is not active during interpretation and prophecy, would that validate interpretation and prophecy as genuine? If, as I suspect, that part of the brain is VERY active, would that invalidate interpretation and prophecy?

"I was hungry and thirsty for love without the slightest idea where to find it." -- Acts 29. I think this issue has been bubbling just under the surface of GSC for years. Not being Corps or ex-Corps, I have no dog in the fight. But a bunch of posts over the last couple of days have really got me thinking about this, so I'm going to throw this out there as a conversation starter. TWI is an institution. That is, it is an organization with a structure. I think a majority of us got involved in TWI out of a genuine hunger and thirst for righteousness. Unfortunately, we came to an organization that had its own agenda. Those who wanted to go WOW or Corps did so, I think, out of a genuine desire to serve. But "service" was defined by TWI, and especially in the case of those who went Corps, those who wanted to serve became an arm of the organization. Understanding that we are each ultimately responsible for the things we choose to do, at what point to we stop looking at Corps as "marks" and "victims" of TWI's agenda and start looking at them as enablers, facilitators and perpetrators of it? Or is that the wrong question to ask? Am I using the wrong words? Can you phrase it better? I am torn between looking at Corps as the epitome of TWI's victims vs. the epitome of what made TWI oppressive in the first place. For me, a conclusion is not required. But as I said, I thought it would make for an interesting conversation.

Fair enough, Chockfull. I tried to use the word "indicates" to distinguish from "proved," because if you're following this conversation over various threads, you know that I agree that nothing has been or can be proved. I can use words like "suggests" or something similar, but I concede I cannot use "proved" or "proves."

Sigh. MRAP Can post wherever he wants, just like the rest of us. And I'm not the only moderator here. I do not run this site. There are three of us who are active at the moment. And the only reason people know I'm a moderator, is that I screwed up my duties a couple of years ago.

DontSnippyBeNice!

I don't know much about SOWERS, but my understanding is that it can easily be traced to TWI. What's the issue?

If you can come up with an example to consider regarding roots that precede TWI, please suggest it so we can consider it. Otherwise, I'm not about to come up with a framework to address every possible hypothetical. It's a waste of everyone's time.

We're still within 5 days, so give me a chance

Lol

Mr. Ed

We are still waiting for the relevance of the serpent speaking to Eve. Thank you for your observations on my post. I did not mean to direct any comment at you specifically. I'm sure you knew that. I have to say that to date, I find disagreeing with you to be quite agreeable. Your diplomacy certainly exceeds mine, and I appreciate it. No more me, seeing as my particular argument is specifically not the thread topic. I just wanted to clarify a point.

NEW RULE ON ALL GAMES After five days of inactivity, anyone is allowed to kick-start a game by any means (answering a question by looking it up, posting a new question even if it's not your turn, etc).

That is correct.

Quick comment: There is no indication that when angels speak in the Bible, they speak in anything other than human languages. If there is such a thing as "languages of angels," then it is conceivable that a person speaking in languages could produce an angelic language. I do not believe that to be the case, but that is my opinion only. What is NOT likely by any logical stretch is that every attempt made by a disinterested third party to identify the language produced when someone speaks in languages will be an example of an angelic language, therefore not identifiable. It is perfectly fair to suggest this will happen in some cases. I don't agree, but it is not important to me that it can or cannot happen. It is NOT perfectly fair to suggest that this happens every single time someone speaks in tongues in a setting where other people are present. You may disagree with me there. Fine. We have nothing to argue. I think "tongues of angels" is hyperbole. But I hope I have never asserted that as anything more than my opinion.. I think I have a sound basis for it, but it is not central to anything I've suggested. Remember, in ALL of these discussions, it takes ONE person practicing SIT to produce an identifiable language in front of a disinterested third party to prove me wrong. One. For my part, that one example has to be rock-solid documentable to be trusted. None of this "it happened to my third cousin's wife's best friend in Zimbabwe once." None of this "it happened right in front of me, but everyone involved is now dead, missing or living somewhere in Northsouthern Europe." If I am going to handicap my position so that no SIT can be disproved as language, then I think it's perfectly fair that I can set a really high standard for proving the product of someone's SIT is a language. That took longer than I wanted. Sorry.

Of course

Not going to throw this thread off course, but social pressure ties directly into my thesis about SIT in The Way.

It was 1st Century Soap. Actually left you dirtier after you used it, but that was your fault.

Sheesh. Ok, hint: It's NOT The Living Twilight.

How many movies about a guy waking up from a coma after five years have they made? And then he wonders whether it would have been moral to kill Hitler if he knew what Hitler was going to do in the future?

I don't see where Mark's position of what the Bible teaches about SIT and the definition of "glossa" differs from mine, so I've been reading these latest posts with great interest. I'm not sure there's any disagreement at the heart of what we're discussing here. If I'm mistaken, I trust Mark will correct me. I see him saying "glossa is a language. Believers at a meeting probably won't understand the language for practical reasons, and the incidents in Acts serve to show that understanding is possible." That's what I THINK Mark is saying. Whether someone present understanding is the norm or the exception doesn't impress me one way or another, Biblically. I agree that the definition of "phenomenon" as used has no apparent Biblical basis, but I don't see what bearing it has on the definition of glossa. I guess what I'm saying is, as you're challenging Mark on his posts, can we ascertain whether you guys are actually disagreeing about anything substantive?

Entirely possible that you're right and I'm wrong on this one, MRAP. I'll sleep on it. If I don't change my mind, I will at least ask for a second opinion. Thank you for the constructive criticism.

My modhat is going to be half on/half off for this one. DWBH, please avoid making it personal. This thread is about the REV, not MRAP's loyalties. Whether he has discussed the questions he's raising with Lynn, Schoenheit, Graeser, Geer, Cummins, Finnegan, Wilkinson, Caballero, Townsend or Dorothea Kipp is between him and them. His questions are fair game for this forum. He is entitled to ask them. He is not entitled to a response; that's up to other posters who are interested in the material. If no one is interested MRAP: It is not reasonable to try to separate the REV from the people who produced it, and (modhat off, opinion follows) it is not possible to divorce their presuppositions from Wierwille. So to ask people to not talk about Wierwille's "junk" is reasonable if we're talking about his personal failings, but it is not reasonable if you're talking about his doctrine and/or how he developed it. Those doctrines are entirely relevant to the REV because they informed the people who produced it.

I have to stay consistent. I've always taken the verses Mark cited to mean that under normal circumstances, in a church setting (or believer's meeting, if you prefer), the people present will not be expected to recognize the language produced in SIT. It is clear from other verses that understanding the language is possible, because these are languages. But typically, everyone in the church speaks and understands the same language (or two or at most three). Their SIT will invariably produce a fourth language (otherwise it's not SIT but the much less astonishing feat known as "talking"). That fourth language will, again TYPICALLY, be spoken by none of the people present. Thus, they will not understand. But God will. This does not change the fact that it is a glossa, an actual language.

That was fantastic! Flash, I mean

Wouldn't permanent death qualify as everlasting punishment?