Raf

Nope

MRAP, you say you've been speaking in tongues since 1972 and you follow up with a question: if the Bible says it's a manifestation, then is it real? Your question presumes that what you're doing is, in fact, what the Bible describes as speaking in tongues. As far as I'm concerned, until you prove that point, I am not obliged to answer your question. You don't speak in tongues. You only claim to. You're sincere about it, but a self-serving man claiming to be wise once said... If, when you speak in tongues, you produce a language, then I have little choice but to concede your practice is genuine. But that determination is based on you producing the results the Bible predicts. Otherwise, it's just a claim, of no more merit than the warmth in the bosom of the sincere Mormon.

We realized early on that there was a need to distinguish between discussions about our experiences in and out of TWI versus the doctrines espoused by TWI and others. Sometimes it's a huge challenge to draw the line. But if you want to talk about what people think of The Word, the Doctrinal section is generally the place to go. Discussing the REV in the CES/STFI section makes sense too. That's a toss-up, but doctrinal makes a little more sense.

Look Who's Talking Too Bruce Willis Die Hard 2: Die Harder

Well, I was going to condense it, but... Christianity in general and TWI in particular teaches people how to fake speaking in tongues. There's nothing genuine about it. You can only establish that your SIT is genuine by demonstrating that you have in fact produced a language. Until you do, you are merely making a claim. The claim I make, that you're faking it, has gobs of evidence to support it. The only evidence you can provide to support your claim is... a language.

MRAP, I think if you look at the time stamps, you'll find that this is mostly a site of people who HAVE moved on, people who barely post snymore, but whose recollections and warnings endure. You can dismiss them all you want, but to continue in the mindset that we long ago recognized as cultic and abandoned while simultaneously accusing us of being unable or unwilling to move on...? We HAVE moved on. Will you move out? ;)

MRAP asked: "Hey Raf and Kermitt (Waysider, don't mind if I call you Kermitt - any parts of you smell like pork) All aside, here's my question: I have been speaking in tongues since 1972 (what's that, 40 some years) and my tonuge/s change quite frequently and have done so over the years and decades. I SIT alot, often outloud when alone, sometimes just at the lips and more often, prior to making it that far. I do "hear" the words in the ol'e noggin (no, not hearing voices). So,if the Bible says that it is a manifesttion than is it real? Now, I do remember all about those "starter words" and that is a mind thing; I recall how many folks started their tongues the same way that VP did (la shanta). I spoke in tongues prior to completing the PFAL class; that's another story. So, do either of you still SIT, I think I know that answer, in part. I have not read this whole thread but just needed to ask, maybe had I read the whole thing I would have gotten my answer." I'll answer later

No, not sorry I gave you access. You're arriving here way past this site's heyday. Your views are welcome, but be advised that the forum is open to all views, including those who do not consider the Bible to be The Word anymore. There is a subsection of the Doctrinal forum called Questioning Faith. In it, there is a thread on Questioning SIT. Your question belongs there.

MRAP, your question is not appropriate for this particular thread (which is not supposed to be arguing about whether SIT is real).

Who was the writer who wanted to play John Stewart?

Barney Ross Gabe Walker Lincoln Hawk

The Jack Black rumor reminds me of Green Lantern, but the rest of it baffles me.

Take Me With U The Bird Jungle Love

So Mark, Steve, are you guys agreed that Biblical speaking in tongues will produce an actual language every time?

I'm pretty sure the message behind the original photo on this thread is, "If you want to discriminate against people on the basis of your deeply held religious beliefs, you need to understand that we can turn that principle right back around on you." It's not more complicated than that.

At all

So, on slavery, we seem to be at a standstill. I think the Bible very clearly talks about a lack of freedom and one human being owning another, able to beat the other within limits, able to hold the other's children hostage unless they agree to become slaves for life (a promise that is utterly empty if it's not enforceable). I think the Bible makes provision for for slaves who escape INTO Israel from other countries, but somehow does not even consider the scenario of a slave IN Israel escaping from his master. I think there is a profound difference between being owned by someone and being employed by someone (even the Bible knows the difference between a slave and a hireling). TnO appears to disagree with me on all of these issues save one: the notion of a master keeping a wife and son "hostage" (my word) unless the freed slave agrees to become bound to the master for life. It's not that TnO agrees with me there, however. Rather, he simply hasn't addressed it. At all. He is certainly free to do so. TnO I appreciate you taking the time to share your views and insights. I do not find them compelling or in the slightest bit convincing. Tzaia used the word "sanitizing," and I agree with that assessment. I think you're sanitizing Biblical slavery, changing it so that it's palatable to you. I think you're sincere about that. I don't think you're correct. If there's anything else about slavery you wish to address, have at it. If you'd like to move on to the death penalty (and have something to say other than we're the potter's clay to be broken as he pleases), I invite that discussion as well. Or any other topic you'd like to address.

It is indeed

It's kind of complicated, I think. We get some of our morality from religion, to be sure. But where did religion get its morality? [in my view] religion gets its morality from the people who invented the religion. A religion created by a people who saw women as second class citizens and slaves as property will never rise above those practices on their own, but they may indeed harbor principles that would eventually overturn both (people don't have to be without error or contradiction, remember). But once something becomes codified in a religion, it becomes very difficult to break beyond that religion's moral code. That's why, hundreds of years later, the religious folk could bring a woman taken in adultery to Jesus' feet with the perfectly Biblically accurate intention to stone her to death. The story is an interpolation, but the plausibility of the story remains intact because the law of Moses does indeed teach that she should have been put to death. In the story, Jesus doesn't say, "killing someone over adultery is immoral." That would be calling the Old Testament law immoral. So he finds another escape route. A clever one, it must be admitted. But today, if I were to propose a law identical to the Old Testament law on adultery, we would call such a law immoral. Not that adultery is cool. We have simply evolved in our morality to the point that we do not consider it a capital offense. The writers of the Old Testament had a different moral code, a stricter one. A less moral one, according to our values today. According to even Christian and Jewish values today. We elevate love, compassion and forgiveness as positive values, never admitting that in doing so, we are simultaneously denouncing the Old Testament law as immoral by our standards. We DO get some of our morality from our religion, but our religion got its morality from the people who invented it. Barbaric people? Barbaric morality. Less barbaric but still unenlightened people? Less barbaric but still unenlightened morality. It's only if you insist that religion's morality is absolute and objectively moral because it comes from God that you run into the trouble we';re exploring in the other thread: an absolutely objectively moral God would not impose laws we all agree would be immoral. But that's an exploration of where we DON'T get our morality. Where DO we get it from? We get it, ultimately, from reason.

Be patient, MRAP. Not a lot of people post here who are still active with STFI and company. It may be a while before you get an answer. :)

Yes

Awesome!

Clint Eastwood

Bye Bye Birdie

Welcome, MRAP. You'll find a WIDE variety of opinion here, some friendly to TWI/CES/STFI/TLTF, some critical and some quite hostile. Some of us have remained with offshoots. Some of us have joined mainstream Christian churches. Some of us (myself included) have abandoned religion altogether. What binds us here is a shared history and a shared concern for those who are still in TWI who think leaving is the worst thing that could happen. We're here to show it is not. We left. We thrived. Feel free to poke around, revive old threads and see if anyone bites. Nice to see a new face around here. I bid you peace. Raf