Raf

With actual errors, I carefully crafted definitions in order to limit my ability to declare something an error. Far from precluding conclusions other than those I already hold, my definitions worked against me by design. They had to, or the premise of my argument would have failed. Further, I did not offer an individualist definition of evidence. Rather, I set an unusually high threshold for what made something an error as opposed to a difference of opinion or interpretation.

When you say I'm ignoring mountains of evidence that I've actually considered and rejected, you speak an untruth. That you accept something as evidence and I reject it is something we can state clearly without disagreeing further. But evidence and faith are not compatible terms in the context of this discussion. Look clearly. You are telling me that in order to hold my position, I need to ignore evidence. That's simply not true. What I am ignoring is not evidence, it's the claim. You said Pentecostals CAN and DO speak in tongues. That's an assertion, which you go on to cite as evidence I'm ignoring. Now, if you are saying as a matter of faith that Pentecostals speak in tongues, I have no quarrel with you. You believe that, and I can't argue with what you believe. But when you cite that practice as evidence, you simultaneously make the claim that what they are doing has a supernatural element and is more than mere free vocalization. I dispute that. You do not get your own definition of evidence, sorry to say. You only get your own standard of what evidence you are willing to accept as proving your assertion, and I think the history of this discussion contains admissions on both sides that the evidence alone does not confirm SIT as genuine. If it did, the whole world would be Christian.

Just one quibble: Again, emphasis mine. And again, I defy you or anyone else to produce this "evidence." The studies that have been done, that have failed to detect known languages, are all of Pentecostals, not of TWI people. The evidence that exists indicates that Pentecostals are not producing languages. So to say I am rejecting SIT because of Wierwille's chicanery is actually 180 degrees incorrect. The only evidence there is to examine is of Pentecostals, not Wierwillites. (And it should be clear that I am not counting unsubstantiated anecdotes as "evidence"). I don't see an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of speaking in tongues. In fact, I don't see evidence at all. 100 percent of the evidence that we can substantiate supports the proposition that SIT is nothing more than free vocalization, with no supernatural element to it at all. I'm not going to argue about what you believe versus what I believe. That's between you and your God. But when you start talking about "the evidence," you step outside the realm of personal faith and into the realm of what can be objectively shown.

I'll post something tonight. :)

I'm a little backed up. If you're patient, I'll post something today or tomorrow. If you've got something ready, free post.

And I used to live in the Florida city. Hollywood Squares

I'm not going to respond to everything written on this thread, much as I want to , because I don't feel I would be writing much of anything that hasn't been covered before. I do want to address one statement Steve made. "Even if Wierwille was a total fraud (which I think he was), and even if every single person who graduated from Power For Abundant Living was deliberately faking tongues throughout their whole time in the Way (which I do not think was the case), it probably would not have made a perceptible difference in the number of people speaking in tongues in the world." (emphasis mine) I want to clarify anything I stated or misstated before: I don't think people deliberately faked anything. I think we believed it was real and/or convinced ourselves it was real. My personal belief is that this was universal. Steve and others disagree. We've made that clear. No need to rehash it. As for what science has and has not demonstrated, I'll state my position this way: Science has demonstrated that it is possible for someone to produce (what we called, in another thread) free vocalization. Charismatic Christianity has not demonstrated to my satisfaction that it is producing anything other than free vocalization when it claims to be producing "speaking in tongues." Anecdotal evidence does not impress me. It satisfies others. Impasse. No need to rehash it. You guys are talking past each other, I submit. More power to ya!

I think I can take it for granted that Steve and I do not agree with each other on the "reality" of speaking in tongues, so responding to his post with this strikes me as... I don't know, I can't think of the right word. I just feel like "it's all a bunch of hooey" is my position, Steve rejects my position and is entitled to explore and refine his own position using his standards (the Bible, tradition, reason, experience, prehaps in that order, along with any other criteria he decides to use). I'm interested in hearing him out, knowing that at the end, I'm going to say "it's all a bunch of hooey." I'm looking at it this way: I'm interested in learning what the Bible actually says about speaking in tongues, whether it differs from what I was previously taught, whether there's anything I can learn about it, and whether I need to adjust my argument to respond to new or amended information. I'll keep reading now. :)

Just noticed this thread and the subtitle. Laughed at the subtitle. Thanks for the chuckle. Now to read the posts (yikes).

I just don't think my question was so ethereal that it required the word "quantum" to answer. Everyone knew what I meant, the answer was obvious, and everything else is smoke and mirrors. Sorry, but it's frustrating. Understanding that Genesis is not history but mythology changes things for a lot of Christians, who now have to ask, "well, in what sense is it true?" THEN you can get into all of the business we're talking about here. The notion that the Biblical flood was inspired by something that actually took place... I mean, come on, no duh! 95 percent of fiction fits that category. That doesn't mean it deserves the label "based on a true story." The question being raised (mostly on another thread) is whether the flood described in Genesis actually happened, not whether some other flood happened that inspired the writer of Genesis to plagiarize write a fictional account featuring a 600-year-old ship builder and his childbearing age daughters-in-law. I'm going to stop writing before I get rude and/or off-topic. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on your achaeology class, Steve.

Silent Running Man of La Mancha Silent Running The Running Man Man of La Mancha

The Natural

I find the bulk of this discussion unnecessarily complicated. Enjoy pursuing it if you must. I think you answered my question in simple terms, and I'll just be satisfied with leaving it at that.

I guess that's why they call it the blues By Elton John

In case this is where you were going: The notion of "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die" is often associated with the philosophy of Epicureanism, though I admit in my own head I pictured something more akin to Hedonism when I heard that phrase. Hedonism is a selfish, inconsiderate and frankly dangerous way to go through life. Seeking pleasure for the sake of pleasure is not wise. Perhaps I am not defining the term properly, but whatever. I don't want to get bogged down in definitions. I will say this: Eat healthy, for a long and healthy life. Drink in moderation, enjoy the pleasures of life without endangering yourself or anyone around you. Be merry. Because why not? But in addition, be sober, be considerate, be mindful. We are alive for a brief amount of time, but in that time we can and will have an effect on those around us and those who will succeed us. We are more likely to be environmentally minded, not because we worship nature, but because we don't expect a magic janitor is going to come along someday to clean up our mess. That is certainly neither Epicurean nor hedonistic. Just some thoughts.

I eat for nourishment. I drink in moderation. I'm merry because I have no reason not to be.

For the first paragraph, nothing I wrote was intended to be a blanket statement. I apologize if I was less than clear about that. For the second paragraph, again, I don't think there was one TWI experience. I give them more credit than you do. I don't think that makes either of us incorrect.

The emphasis in bold is mine. Allan, I don't see where anyone is saying anything of the kind about Jesus, Moses or Paul. I have not implied that they were misguided idiots anywhere, and certainly not on this thread. Quick grammar lesson, by the way: INFERRING is done by the hearers and readers of information, not by the speakers and writers. You meant to say "By your statements you IMPLY they were misguided idiots." Which I dispute. I neither said nor intended any such thing.

On another thread, Allan wrote: I think Allan raises a very fair question, one that deserves an honest answer. Here’s the challenge, as I see it. According to TWI, sonship is an inside job that cannot be renounced. I can’t renounce being a son of God anymore than I can renounce being my father’s son. [More accurately, I can renounce it all I want, but I can’t undo it]. So if TWI is correct, I’m saved, and there’s not a thing I can do about it. I can renounce Christianity as a fairy tale (and I do) and it would not change the fact that when the trumpet sounds, I’ll be right next to the rest of you, praising away. You want to know if I take comfort in that? Well, no, not really. I am no more comforted by Christianity’s heaven than I am worried about Islam’s hell. I believe both fates are equally imaginary. Do you lie awake at night worried that maybe the Norse had it right and Odin is going to be really, really mad at you? Neither do I. In the same way, I take no comfort in what I once believed. I recognize that the particular brand of Christianity that I followed had no more chance of being right than Catholicism, no more chance of being right than the Watchtower Society, no more chance of being right than the Mormons. I will say this: If I’m wrong now, as an atheist, then I hope I was right before, because that wouldbe comforting. But if I’m wrong now and I was wrong then, well, wow, so what? I lose twice. But at least I’m being honest with myself and not believing “just in case.” Wierwille used Pascal’s Wager in his teaching: “If we’re wrong, we have nothing to lose. If we’re right, we have everything to gain. Unbelievers have nothing to gain and everything to lose.” Pascal’s Wager, of course, has a fallacy you could orbit a galaxy around: It only makes sense if there are only two choices. It does not acknowledge that Christians and atheists could both be wrong and destined for Allah’s hell. So to answer your question, Allan, no, I do not take comfort in “knowing” that I’m “saved.” I’m not saved. Neither are you. We are fortunate enough to have beaten the odds against our existence, to have this one shot at experiencing this wonderful, beautiful thing called life. I don’t know what will happen when I die. Lot's of things, I suppose. All I know is, they won’t involve me.

Allan, that's an interesting point you raise. My problem is, TWI taught that I couldn't renounce my salvation if I wanted to. I'll see you up there, period, no matter what I believe now. I believe a full answer to your question would be off-topic. I am posting my response here, to avoid derailing THIS thread.

In this thread, I'll be picking up comments made on OTHER threads and responding to them here. My goal is to NOT derail the other threads. If I can make a comment on the original thread without going off-topic, I'll do that. But if my comment detracts or distracts from what's actually being discussed, I'll reply here. Although this is not a doctrinal thread per-se, I think this is the best place for me to do this. And again, my goal is to NOT derail other threads. Thanks.

It happens often, and it happened in this thread as well (right at the beginning). Whenever a critic accurately cites God's law as evidence that God is immoral, the defense frequently seems to be, "well, it was a different time and a different culture." I don't think that argument washes, for a lot of reasons. I have yet to hear a compelling case for why that argument should be accepted. Allow me to explain my position: God is GOD. I mean, He's GOD! He is omnipotent. And He has just shown His power and might to the Israelites in some pretty incredible ways. So he brings them out of Egypt and into the wilderness, and he hands them HIS law. So far, I'm not seeing ANY room for the intrusion of the hard-heartedness of the Israelites, unless God is being pre-emptive here, which I suppose is his right. But making concessions for hard-heartedness (for example, allowing divorce or making it relatively easy) is not the same as allowing EVIL because the Israelites could not handle good. That is preposterous. I mean, if he's going to make concessions for that, He might as well not give His law. "Well, these folks can't really handle not owning another human being, so I'll just regulate human being ownership and forbid them from killing their slaves. Hurting is okay, I guess, as long as the slave isn't hurt for too long. BUT NO SHELLFISH! And if you work on Saturday, you're DEAD!" This is not rational behavior from a North Korean dictator, much less from someone who embodies and defines "objective" morality. Second-guessing God is a HUGE sin. I know, because often when I discuss this with people, I am accused of second-guessing God. Funny that these same people have no compulsion whatsoever when it comes to second-guessing Allah. But then, Allah is obviously a made up God, which we know because when we scrutinize his word, it is filled with barbaric admonitions and declarations we know to be untrue. Not like the Bible at all (why, yes, I am being sarcastic! And props to you for noticing). My sense is, if God were really opposed to slavery, He would have just banned it, like he banned shellfish and working on Saturday. So he must not be opposed to slavery. (But... but... but...) But NOTHING! I'm supposed to be impressed that he banned it later? I'm not, for two reasons. First, he allowed it initially, and that is morally unacceptable. Second, he never banned it. Old Testament and New, God never banned slavery. The best you can say, on a good day, is that he laid out a moral case against it. But it never became important enough to him that he felt compelled to say, "You know what, don't do that. Period. Don't own people. Ever." The fact that Yahweh got slavery wrong -- slavery is one of the easiest moral questions man has ever faced. Seriously. It's not hard at all. Thou shalt not own people. Yahweh came down on the wrong side of it, regulating it instead of banning it (when you look at the list of things he banned on punishment of death, the absence of slave-owning on that list becomes startling). Now, I know what some of you are thinking. If I don't believe in God, who am I to declare God's permission of slavery to be morally unacceptable? I want you to think about that question, long and hard, and about what it imlpies. The question implies that I am wrong, by God's objective standard of morality, to declare slavery unacceptable. The question implies that slavery is acceptable. And if THAT's what you think, then I shudder at what else you would permit in God's name. If it's NOT what you think, then you, too, are more moral than Yahweh. I invite feedback.

Given it some thought. Not a lot, but some. And I would have to conclude (preliminary/don't care enough to research it further) that it must be some kind of translational screw-up. For the author to have made such a mistake would have been incredibly sloppy. One would expect that kind of mistake in Genesis, which is believed by scholars to have more than one author (hence the repetition and contradiction in the Flood account, for example), but for one writer (Exodus) to forget that he hasn't yet introduced priests into the narrative... yeah, seems a bit far fetched. Still possible, but I'm more willing to accept the idea that I missed something in the translation than that the writer made such a spectacular blunder. So, I stand corrected without prejudice (meaning, I reserve the right to revisit if my give-a-rat's ever rises to the level of wanting to).

The opposite, I think. It's why some of us still insist on going to some church of some kind, even one that's not based on the "rightly divided word," because the alternative, abandoning church and its doctrines altogether, would be a tacit admission that all the time spent parsing the choice of prepositions in order to unlock the nature of the Creator of the Universe might maybe have been wasted. How could I have been wasting my time when I was taught how to think? (Answer: you were simultaneously taught that questioning God was bad, the first step to the fall of man. And the moment you accept the premise that God as a concept cannot be questioned, you become potential prey to anyone you believe speaks for that God).

Yes