Raf

Ok. I'm not overly concerned. Both our points are made. Carry on.

Prop A was very tentatively worded. I don't get how you can call it a blanket statement seeing as it only talks about how things appear.

On what basis do you disagree with proposition A, which makes no doctrinal claims and merely observes and recites a fact?

It only matters when assessing vpw's credibility and integrity as a researcher and representative of God. He failed to meet the standards of scholarship while holding himself up as a scholar (implied by his use of the honorific "Doctor"). And he was dishonest, a quality that conflicts with the notion that he was a man of God. As to the quality of the content, it matters not one whit.

I'll take "Threads that no one wants to see resurrected" for $2,000, Alex.

I really have no desire to rehash the old conversation except to answer MRAP's question and, seriously, suggest that you should take the question elsewhere. Not to protect the integrity of this thread, but because I have nothing new to add.

MRAP, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but seeing as this thread is what it is, and where it is, I'm going to gently recommend you ask your question in one of the SIT threads in the main doctrinal section, where it really seems more at home. My answer is you faked it. You were taught to fake it and you have concocted a slew of excuses for why it doesn't produce what the Bible promises: a known human language. The most obvious answer is that you're not producing languages, but that doesn't square with your faith. From my perspective, I have offered an explanation that perfectly describes our shared experience, though it doesn't fit a bunch of predictably unsubstantiated claims about visitors from West Bubbahump who recognized the language and then went back to West Bubbahump, never to be seen again. A likely story. From a Christian perspective, I think an exploration of what you're all doing is necessary because it doesn't seem to match what the Bible says will happen. From MY perspective, I predict you'll never produce what the Bible says, and I don't see where an unbeliever is obliged to explain anything when I've already offered an explanation that fits the facts. Produce a language and I have some explaining to do. Don't produce a language? Talk among yourselves. Stay right here.

For what it's worth, I'm really restraining myself in terms of pulling the "get back on topic" card, but seeing as this thread was dormant for so long and, I think, there is so little desire to resurrect the SIT thread, I'm just exercising patience. If another mod wants to jump in, I'm good with that.

No. Just excuses. You wouldn't have to think outside the box if SIT delivered on its claims.

Yes, once you verify that it's a language, you have to verify that it was unknown to the speaker. Once you have done both, you've pretty much confirmed the only explanation is supernatural. "Product of the devil"? No, you're not opening a can of worms. The can is empty. Relax. Excuses, excuses, excuses.

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. ;)