Raf

Raiders of the Lost Ark I yield to Human w/o Bean

TLC, You're confusing authenticity with sincerity (which, I heard somewhere once, is not a guarantee for truth). The sincerity of your beliefs as they motivate your actions do not validate those actions as authentic. It's real simple: Either you're producing languages or you're not. If you're not, you're not speaking in tongues, period. It may bring you all the "benefits" you predict. It brings you peace. It makes you feel closer to God. Issues you were meditating on might get resolved, "miraculously." Hey, more power to you. But that doesn't mean you spoke in tongues, or that your exercise of this practice had even the slightest thing to do with the outcome you desired. Since it's impossible to tell what would have happened had you NOT spoken in tongues (allegedly), any claim that there was a cause-and-effect relationship is not testable. I have nothing to say about it. I've prayed for things that came to pass. I've prayed for things that did not. If it makes you feel better, go for it. I'm not going to stop you. But if you're not producing a language, you're not speaking in tongues. You can buy something with counterfeit money, but it's still counterfeit money. Your ability to use it for a desired end is dependent on the recipient's inability to tell it from the real thing. Deception on your part is not required, because it's still counterfeit money even if you believe from the bottom of your heart that it's real.

I will say it again: You make no argument that SIT is genuine. There is nothing for me to address. "What difference does it make?" is not my question to answer. It's yours. If it makes you feel good to babble in a corner and pretend it's "perfect prayer" or some such nonsense, be my guest. I'm not going to stop you until you start pushing it as a real thing. You didn't. You made no argument for its authenticity at all. So there is nothing at all for me to address.

The whole notion of God wanting to confound the wise is Biblical justification for the celebration of stupidity. Everytime someone is smart enough to say "Wait a minute. You're peddling nonsense," the Bible gives you a built-in defense. Confounding the wise. Give me a break.

You make no actual argument that SIT is genuine. Not really any issue to discuss there.

I also remember having very strict rules about what you could or could not say. It was a real pain in the neck, and in the end I decided that I did not want to be in the position of deciding who was and was not a Christian.

Agreed, if we can't agree on a frame of reference, we can't agree on "truth." Should we care to converse, we would have to first find a common frame of reference and build from there. One of the things I tried to accomplish with the speaking in tongues thread was to tackle the subject without challenging the frame of reference. My observations on that thread stand whether or not you believe in God or accept the authority of scripture. (Not everyone agrees with me on that point, but a few people do, and remain believers).

I doubt I can do justice to your question without taking more time than anyone here has, but I'll give you the short version. First, yes. Of course I did. I was a Christian. I believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why? I was taught the story at a young age and believed it to be history. As I grew older, I abandoned bits of the Bible piece by piece, but the resurrection was one thing that I continued to believe, up until I realized there is no historical basis for it. That is, I believed that the early believers, those in a position to know for a fact whether he was raised, chose death over the prospect of renunciating that faith. In other words, "renounce the resurrection, or die," and they chose death. but that never happened. Ever. There is no evidence to support the assertion. I'm not going to rag on anyone for continuing to believe it did happen, but I am confident that it did not and see no reason to believe otherwise. Without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. So no, I no longer believe that happened. If I had not been indoctrinated as a child, I think my chances of believing in the resurrection are on par with my chances of believing in Mohammed's flying horse. No offense, but you asked.

Back when I was running the Living Epistles Society website and forum, I intended to make it a "safe haven" for Christian ex-followers of TWI, but I soon realized that I had put myself in the unenviable position of having to decide who was and was not a Christian. I made a lot of judgment calls (Mormons - no, Jehovah;s Witnesses, yes). But I was really uncomfortable with being in that position. Chuck, if your views are now what they were then, I can see why I would not have considered you Christian, but really, it is SO not my place to judge. It never was. It was easier to abandon the site than it was to manage it. In any event, you have always been very gracious about it and I had forgotten our "clash" or whatever you want to call it. I'm grateful for your acceptance and forgiveness. Peace. Oh, and welcome back.

When two people disagree about their opinions or the facts underlying them, they engage in a debate in order to get to the truth (not to "win"). Those who do so honestly, we learn from. Those who do so dishonestly find ways to dodge, distract, evade, etc. I have learned to identify such people and avoid engaging them in fruitless discussions.

Plagiarism is dishonesty. That's all there is to it. If you're ok with dishonesty, then plagiarism will not bother you.

I love dealing with people who use honest tactics when debating, and I will continue to do so. Peace all.

Sorry, TLC, but I can't take anyone seriously who uses the word "if" in regards to Wierwille's plagiarism. But as significantly, no one is saying Wierwille plagiarized EVERYTHING, and the decision of what terminology to use under what circumstances was still his, regardless of the source of his material. Your appeal to Wierwille's plagiarism was a lousy attempt to distract from the very valid point Steve raised. ... On another note, I have a bunch of wine glasses hanging above a recessed wall in my kitchen. They are beautiful. Some are champagne flutes. They've been there more than five years, unbroken after all this time. But the fact that they are unbroken does not mean they are not fragile. They could remain unbroken for decades and still be fragile. If you were to point to their endurance as evidence that they were not fragile, you would be hilariously mistaken. The fact is that they have yet to experience the circumstances under which they would break. Let me know if you need help with the analogy.

For the same reason you prosecute the user of a gun and not the manufacturer. Utterly meaningless. By which I mean, it doesn't address the issue in the slightest.

Correlation, not causation. ;)

Gamaliel, of course, was wrong. Plenty, PLENTY of movements that were merely "of men" did not come to naught. Islam. Mormonism. Scientology.

The Story of O Brother Where Art Thou

57 takes I didn't hear a difference in one of them... You're up.

"Wellllll.... (title, half-title half-title) little darlin Tell me that you'll never leave me"

In 1941, Fritz Lang produced a movie that was about a plot to assassinate Adolph Hitler. The U.S. was not at war with Germany at the time, and the movie, "Man Hunt," was the first American made film about an assassination attempt against a foreign leader who was in power at the time. This movie was the second.

No problem. Miscommunication cleared up. And thanks for the added perspective that you're in touch with innies. I somehow was not aware of that (contrary to popular belief, the mods, to the best of my knowledge, do not read every.single.post.on.the.site). So if I hear you say something about current events in TWI, I will know to trust it as more than just speculation. Hearsay might be inadmissible in a court of law, but this is not a court of law. :)

No, the issue was you omitted my comment on what the new perspectives would be about. I was originally commenting on the statement that this site no longer has new info about what's been going on in TWI recently. I was explaining that there is a sound reason for that. We need recent innies for the latest info, and we don't have them. No one here is launching a professional investigation into TWI. Unless we get new, recent members, anything we say about TWI's current activities are rumor or second hand, unless we get documentation somehow. When I said new perspectives, I was specific about the subject. I have a new perspective on things, and I'm sure dozens of other posters do as well. But not about what's going on in TWI now. I have no perspective on that. And I would at least challenge the notion that most of us are in contact with current wayfers. I could be wrong, but the last thing I would do is assume most of us are.

I'm sorry, but you need new people for new perspectives ABOUT RECENT EVENTS IN TWI. None of us are in, and if someone just left TWI and wants to share his/her experience but is unable to do so because he can't register for this page, then that absolutely DOES affect this page's ability to offer those perspectives. I don't see how that's even arguable. I have no idea how many of us are in touch with current innies.

That's Entertainment

Superman III Christopher Reeve Deathtrap