Raf

Yup

Steve, your post was going just fine until you inappropriately injected me into it at the end. This isn't hard. If you keep discussing me, I become the topic. So stop. And I repeat what I have said all along: I will respect what you deem to be on topic, as long as it is on topic for everyone. I will avoid what is off topic, as long as it is off topic for everyone. "It's on topic for him but not for you" is rude. It just is. So no problem. You want this thread to take for granted that SIT is real. Dandy. I won't question it. But if someone else questions it and you, instead of explaining that they're off topic, engage that discussion, then YOU are declaring their questions to be on topic. You can't have it both ways. Challenging modern SIT is either on topic for everyone or it's off topic for everyone. I point you back to the "Staying on Topic" thread pinned to the top of doctrinal. You may not exclude someone from an on topic conversation because you disagree with his presuppositions (especially in this case, where I reject the notion that my presuppositions play any role in this: at least one poster on GSC remains a committed Christian but agrees with me on modern SIT not being biblical SIT. I AGREE that this is a separate conversation. But when you engage it, you expand the thread topic). All I ask of you is a little consistency.

:) Just a gentle reminder, tis all.

A Fifth of Beethoven Open Sesame Boogie Shoes Disco Inferno Plus a few others that would be giveaways.

This cable reboot of series that originally appeared in the 1980s makes a few alterations. The lead female character is no longer a reporter but a high school student. The lead males are unchanged. In a manner of speaking. When the main characters call each other on their cell-phone-like communication devices, the ring tone is the theme music from the original series.

"Don't talk like that. You'll be alright. We're together now; everything's going to be fine, you'll see." "At least - I got to see you - one last time." "No, No! Please. Please... Please don't leave me... I love you."

Fascinating.

During the Great Depression, a sheet music salesman seeks to escape his dreary life through popular music and a love affair with an innocent school teacher, whose son has a near death experience but comes back to assure everyone that there is indeed an afterlife.

Forrest Gump

According to the Bible, genuine SIT will produce a language unknown to the speaker. There are no documented cases of SIT producing what the Bible says it will produce. If it's happening, it's not documented. Lots of unsubstantiated claims, but people differ regarding the weight of that "evidence." For the purposes of this thread, I would assume them to be true. Outside of this thread, I think they're a bunch of hooey. (And that, folks, is how you answer waysider's question without expanding the topic beyond what you claim to be willing to discuss).

Apparently, waysider, your practical challenge to Steve's doctrinal assertion is fine, as long as I am not the one doing the challenging. Switch out your name for mine and, all other things being equal, it becomes explicitly off topic. It seems you can only be off topic if you're me.

Nothing about this site's rules and practices supports the notion that a discussion can be declared on topic when one poster engages in it but off topic when another poster does. THAT is rude. Note that I am criticizing conduct, not people. I have done nothing but attempt to define and stick to the topic here, then sit back and watch every participant veer from it, including the original poster. That IS an invitation to ANYONE to discuss the issues being discussed (none of which include my presuppositions). I know it bugs you guys that I'm an atheist now, but as long as I'm on topic and sticking to the rules, too bad. I'm as on topic as you are, and I'm sticking to the rules. Your options are to return to topic (FOR EVERYONE) or allow the discussion to proceed (FOR EVERYONE). If you think that's rude, you have a bizarre definition of the word.

My comment was substantive and backed by supporting evidence. Your post is simple namecalling

The point I was trying to make is that interpretation changed or varied depending on the doctrinal position of the person doing the speaking. If your doctrine told you to expect edification, exhortation and comfort (EEC), that's what you produced. If your doctrine told you to expect prayer and praise, that's what you produced. Completely consistent with contemporaneous speech/no supernatural explanation required. Completely inconsistent with the message being directly from God and bypassing the mind of the speaker. I'm not sure whether the Bible makes a stronger argument for EEC or prayer and praise. My sense is prayer and praise has the stronger claim to biblical accuracy.

I have not challenged the existence of God or the reliability of the Bible as a whole on this thread. My opinion about what the Bible actually says about SIT is most certainly on topic, and it is disconcerting that you think you can suggest otherwise. I will not argue about whether the Bible is truth, but I am absolutely entitled to argue that the Bible equates tongues with languages. If you disagree with that, we have a serious problem. Further, as the person who started this thread, your intent regarding what is and is not on topic carries great weight. But "it's on topic for him but not for you" is completely out of line. If I am on topic, consistent with what you choose to address and not to address, I am on topic. This is rude, plain and simple. I submit if you don't want me to discuss the issues you bring up in an open forum, you don't bring them in a forum of which I am a member.

Does the Bible say anything about how to distinguish between speaking by the spirit and free vocalization/extemporaneous speech requiring no supernatural infusion whatsoever but producing identical results? (If it's on topic for everyone else, it's on topic for me, thread subheading or not). Am I the only one amazed that when the Holy Spirit speaks through Mark, he validates Mark's view of how this should work, but when the same Holy Spirit spoke to and through the other guy (equally insistent that he was not faking it), the Holy Spirit validated what the other guy said. It's almost like interpretation being exactly like prophesy in TWI, where no one was faking it, but suddenly becoming prayer and praise when the doctrine changed in CES (whose followers insist they weren't faking it). Because that's amazing. Almost like exactly what you would expect if it was all people speaking extemporaneously.

He's speaking doctrinally. You're saying prove it. He's not interested in proving it. Totally different conversations. By the way, Steve, I see no reason for yo to stay off the threads I've started. Your stated reasons are your business, but there's nothing about "presuppositions" that suggests you should stay off. The topics presume our presuppositions will not agree.

As I said earlier, you guys are talking past each other. Just saying.

Again, if Waysider is on topic with his question, then nothing I wrote is off topic. See how that works?

Steve, if THAT'S the conversation you want to have, I'll be happy yo sit back and watch. But by engaging waysider, you opened the discussion beyond its original scope. I'll respect your original scope now.

I'll be moving off topic posts to another thread when I get a chance. Steve, if you'd like to ID which posts are on topic and which are not, it would give me something to go on. Thanks.

My argument has always included a simple way to prove me wrong: produce a language. My premise is valid because it is falsifiable. The argument I'm responding to is the exact opposite of valid. It retreats and moves the goalposts whenever challenged, to the end that some have convinced themselves no one will ever identify the language in SIT, ever (unless, apparently, they are visiting from halfway around the world and returning, never to be seen or heard from again. Then it can be detected. But that's a digression). Talk about an invalid argument!

My comments are responding to yours, so if I'm off topic, I apologize. Of course, when you subtitle a thread that specifically excludes a poster, anything that poster has to say (especially if it disagrees with you) is automatically off topic anyway, isn't it. Two points I believe to be on topic: 1. The studies that have been done demonstrate (not prove) that SIT as practiced does not produce anything that requires a supernatural explanation. That is as close to demonstrating that it's not a function of the spirit as you can get in science. Earthquakes and storms are not God's wrath. Science does not prove this, but it demonstrates it by shoeing the actual causes of earthquakes and storms. Similarly, SIT requires no supernatural explanation until and unless you can demonstrate it produces something free vocalization does not. You can't, because it doesn't. You can presuppose it's supernaturally powered. More power to you. Second, it is a false premise that my conclusion is based on presupposition. I reached this conclusion about SIT years before I rejected the premise of the Bible, and honest believers can reach the same conclusion if they follow what the Bible says to its logical conclusion. My argument had NEVER presupposed the nonexistent of the supernatural. That notion is a defensive posture designed to dismiss my argument without giving it due consideration. You're entitled to it, but not at the expense of misrepresenting me. If I am wrong about God and the Bible, SIT is STILL a bunch of hooey based on the fact that it does not produce what the Bible says it should: languages.

The definition is circular. According to it, if I fool you into free vocalizations, calling it speaking in tongues, and you do it, it's genuine SIT. Then you, in all sincerity, share my instruction in how to produce free vocalizations, believing it to be SIT, and others follow your instruction, sincerely believing they're doing the real thing. By your definition, they are. But they're not. That's why it's flawed. You call my position "presuppositional." I reject that characterization. The word better suits your position, which presupposes a supernatural element without evidence that requires a supernatural explanation. My position is strictly evidence based: produce a language, and you establish something that requires a supernatural explanation. Without it, a natural explanation suffices. "Can you cite a single historical or scientific study that conclusively demonstrates speaking in tongues is NOT a function of spirit?" That's a burden of proof fallacy at work. You are making an affirmative claim. The burden is on you to prove it, not on doubters to disprove it. Why should I have to disprove something you've never demonstrated? Free vocalization produces the exact same result you claim SIT produces, no supernatural element required. If you assert SIT produces something extra, you have to prove it. You cannot name a thread "everyone gets to participate in this except that guy" and bind that guy to it. I was prepared to accept the premise of this thread as a discussion of what the Bible teaches, about which I submit I am no slouch. Not believing a book is very different from not knowing what it says. It says languages. It never says anything other than languages. If you're speaking in tongues, you're producing languages. That is a testable claim. It has been tested. It has never passed. I never said anecdotal evidence has no value. I said it is insufficient. Before I continue, I would like to be clear on what subjects are on topic and what subjects are off. I started a thread specifically to avoid derailing threads like this one, and if I need to move my thoughts there to keep this thread on topic, I'd like to know.

I confess, this thread approaches (and refutes) the Answers in Genesis type of interpretation of the book. I think broadening the scope to include multiple interpretations would quickly make the thread unwieldy, but I suppose it would not be off-topic.