Raf

Close enough

Yes

No and no. Take everything about my post into consideration.

I don't understand "God got me in, God got me out." Did God tell you, "Hey, knock on that door. The person who answers it is going to help you in ways you never thought possible"? Or was it a more [seemingly] mundane set of developments you attribute to God because they impressed you so much? Or was it remarkable, and that's how you knew it was God? (Like a burning bush or a talking donkey). "God got me in" tells us what you concluded, but it doesn't tell us anything tangible. For me, Word Wolf endured a bitterly cold night witnessing to me after (he firmly believes) he heard God tell him he was needed and directed him to where I was. It wasn't the fact that he found me that impressed me so much. It was what he said. It was a LONG conversation. An impressive one. I was impressed. I wanted to learn more. Etc. Not, "God got me in." Maybe He did. Maybe He didn't. But saying He did doesn't convey the slightest bit of information. Which is FINE, if you don't want to answer to question. But if you do [want to answer the question], it doesn't [answer anything].

By what means did God get you in? By what means did God get you out?

"Ma chère mademoiselle. It is with deepest pride and greatest pleasure that we welcome you tonight. And now, we invite to relax, let us pull up a chair, as the dining room proudly presents... your dinner."

If you look at my WHOLE post, all of it, I give away the answer.

Starring Steve Martin, Bernadette Peters, Greg Kinnear and Thomas Haden CHURCH.

Oh, I'm up. Time out. Be right there.

Ready, George....

Ruben Blades Once Upon a Time in Mexico Salma Hayek

You got it! Time to watch that one again. Admittedly, that was better for the Name that Flick thread, but clearly I gave you enough to get it in "one" line.

"So, when do I get out of here?" As soon as Mr. Stone pays the ransom. "What's the problem? What is the ransom?" Well, we asked for $500,000. "That should be no problem." He wouldn't pay. "He wouldn't pay?" Then we asked him for $50,000. "Yeah?" He still wouldn't pay. So now we're lowering our price to $10,000. "Do I understand this correctly? I'm being marked down? [starts crying] I've been kidnapped by K-Mart!"

There's Something About Mary

But Scientology got the cult label when he was still alive. John's point has merit. One quibble I have, John, is that you criticize the "cult" labelers inaccurately, IF my memory serves. They do not consider a religion a cult for rejecting the trinity. They would have no reason to label Jews and Muslims as cultists. Rather, they consider you a cult if you reject the trinity BUT STILL CALL YOURSELF CHRISTIAN. Thus, TWI, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Worldwide Church of God (back in the old days) were all labeled cults. It wasn't just because they rejected the trinity. It was because they rejected the trinity while still "pretending" to be Christian. The term they used, if I recall correctly, was "pseudoChristian" cults. Atheists put it another way: in a cult, there's someone at the top who knows it's all a scam. In a religion, that person died centuries ago.

From Steve L's thread on Speaking in Tongues (and not appropriate for the Questioning SIT thread), Steve wrote: This is not true. I want to be abundantly clear. THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE. "You reject evidence of the supernatural, Raf, not because there isn't any..." Actually, yes, I reject evidence of the supernatural because there isn't any. Claims are not evidence. There are many claims. There is no evidence. If you'd like to produce evidence, or point me to where someone else has done so, I'd be more than happy to check it out. In fact, the JREF will pay $1 million for it. Not a joke. There isn't any. "...but because one of your presuppositions is that the supernatural does not exist." Actually, this is not a presupposition. It is a post-supposition, otherwise known as a conclusion (tentative, in this case, open to receiving more evidence). Dismissing someone's conclusion as a presupposition is a clever way of accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty without actually calling him a liar. I prefer the direct approach. If you think I'm being intellectually dishonest, just say so. I won't hit the report button. I pinky swear. MY presupposition, for 40 years, was that the supernatural DOES exist. You don't get to erase that because I changed my mind AFTER considering where the evidence leads. See, when you change your mind AFTER considering the evidence, that's not a "presupposition," by definition. "You automatically invalidate any evidence that goes against your presupposition." Let's test that theory. Show me evidence that is not merely a claim, and we'll see whether I invalidate it "automatically," as opposed to giving it due consideration, weighing the validity, checking out what can be checked out, and reaching a (tentative) conclusion.

Ok, fixed. Apparently your avatar and your photo are not the same thing. At least, I think it's fixed. I still see the old pic. Drat. Ah!

Raphael from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles should be my avi. Very peculiar.

I took it to mean Bolshevik wanted to know if he (she?) was interpreting our posts the same way Garth was.

Checks list. Applies to Paul. Results: 75 percent match. Applies to Moses. Results: 100 percent match.

My daydreams Selma Hayek Me. Oh all right. Unfaithful Richard Gere Chicago

Hey, what image do you guys see as my avatar? I'm seeing a pic of me, but I shouldn't. What do you see?

A cult is a religion that means it.

P.S. If you believe SIT as practiced today is genuine and Biblical, you are on topic on this thread. Anyone who wants to discuss any aspect of it -- doctrinal, practical, hypothetical, theoretical, anecdotal... you're all on topic. You're on topic. You're on topic. EVERYONE is on topic! And while we're at it, you're on topic if you want to discuss interpretation and prophecy too, seeing as they're all related.

Steve L's thread on Speaking in Tongues is supposed to take certain things for granted, by design. Among those things: 1. The Bible is true. What the Bible says about speaking in tongues is, therefore, true. 2. Speaking in tongues is still possible today. Many people who claim to be doing it now are, in fact, doing it. They are not faking it, and it is not merely "free vocalization" because it IS energized by the Holy Spirit. The implications of taking those two thoughts for granted (and Steve will no doubt correct me if I have misrepresented him) are as follows: A. If you are a Christian who believes that speaking in tongues went out with the apostles, then you can take (1) for granted but you cannot take (2) for granted. Therefore, your objection to the modern practice of SIT is, on that thread, off topic. You are on topic here on this thread. B. If you are a committed Christian who doesn't know whether SIT is available now, believes it might be, but doubts his own experienced based on his understanding of what the Bible promises v. what the results he sees, etc, your doubts and questions are, on that thread, off topic. You are on topic here on this thread. C. If you are an atheist who disbelieves modern SIT and disbelieves the Bible, doubts that are based on the presupposition that all supernatural claims are a bunch of hooey is, on that thread, off topic. And it's kind of off topic on this thread, too. Because it's easy and boring. We get it: You don't believe. I don't believe. Fine. What else is there to say? BUT, if you frame your questions and observations appropriately, you too can be on topic. And that leads me to a CLARIFICATION OF MY POSITION ON SIT. You do not have to be an atheist to doubt SIT, and for me, the two concepts were pretty much unrelated. I continued to be a Christian for YEARS after I came to the conclusion that I was faking it and everyone else probably was, too. My doubts were not based on unbelief; they were based on results and evidence. Simply put, I got honest with my own experience, questioned whether my experience was "universal," found considerable evidence that it was at the very least widespread, realized that there was no verifiable account of anyone producing at any time what the Bible says we will produce every time, and came to the tentative conclusion that it's all being faked. Note: NONE OF THIS ENTAILS DOUBTING THE BIBLE. An analogy: Suppose the Bible explicitly promised that you can walk on water. Someone comes along and teaches you the keys to walking on water. He says all you have to do is get on this boat, and voila! Amazing. Everyone you know is walking on water. It's just amazing! But then one day you compare what you're doing (walking on a boat that is on water, something ANYONE can do that requires no supernatural explanation whatsoever) to what the Bible explicitly promises (YOU can walk ON water!). At some point, you start to say, Hey, guys, what we're doing is not what the Bible says we can do. What we're doing is nothing extraordinary. You don't need to be a believer to do it. Anyone can walk on a boat. It's not what the Bible promised. We've been sold a bill of goods. It doesn't mean you can't walk on water like the Bible says. It only means you haven't been. Presuppositions don't come into play until AFTER this point. If you presuppose the Bible to be true, AND you presuppose that your understanding of the promise is true, then you should believe that there IS a way to walk on water as the Bible promises, just waiting to be discovered, uncovered, unlocked. You can also presuppose the Bible is true BUT come to the conclusion that your understanding of the Bible is not true. In that case, you may WANT to beieve there is a way to walk on water just waiting to be discovered, but you're not 100 percent confident there is one. Or you can presuppose the Bible is not true and, gee, maybe that's why no one can walk on water. "But I am walking on water!" No, you're walking on a boat. "And where's the boat?" On water. "Aha!" Aha, what? You're doing something anyone can do. Why should I believe you're doing something supernatural unless you're producing something that cannot be produced naturally?