Raf

Speaking only for myself, no other religion EVER had a chance with me. The Bible was true, period. The only issue was, who was right about what it says? What is the correct Biblical doctrine? That there WAS a correct Biblical doctrine, that the Bible WAS the ultimate source of truth, was something I never denied or even seriously questioned. If you were to ask me, "on what grounds do you accept the Bible as truth?" I would not be able to give you an answer that was any different from the way a Muslim would answer about the Q'uran, a Mormon about the Book of Mormon, a Scientologist about Dianetics, etc. As an outsider, it was easy for me to reject the ridiculous claims of those other books. But I never subjected the Bible to the same critical thinking that I subjected those books to. And now, as an outsider to Christianity, when I subject the Bible to the same critical thinking, it fails. Spectacularly. Its history is not history. Its morality is not moral. Its laws are not just. If the Bible were the claim of ANY other faith, I would reject it wholesale. That's my feeling, anyway.

I want you to stop and think for a moment about why you are not a Muslim. Or a Hindu. Or a Jehovah's Witness. Or a Buddhist. Or a Mormon. Or a Scientologist. What is it about those religions that you reject? What standard are you holding those religions to, and how/why do they fail to meet your standards of acceptance? If you're like most Christians, your standard is The Bible, but there's a problem there. You may reject Islam because it is in conflict with the Bible, but what of the Muslim, for whom the Bible is not sacred? Isn't a Muslim who rejects Christianity because Christianity is in conflict with the Q'uran on preceisely the same logical ground as a Christian who rejects Islam because Islam is in conflict with the Bible? *** Karl Kahler, in his book on The Way International titled "The Cult That Snapped," made an interesting observation about PFAL. He noted, accurately, that Wierwille declared "the Bible is the revealed Word and will of God" without doing a single thing to prove it. PFAL takes for granted that the Bible is true. Nothing wrong with that, but there it is. PFAL offers the critical thinker no reason to accept the Bible as true. It is not an apologetic work. It doesn't really claim to be. *** The former evangelical turned atheist John Loftus developed what he calls "the outsider test for faith" as a way to get people to understand why he is no longer a Christian. The idea is simple: Approach your faith/religion the same way an outsider to your faith/religion would approach it (and please, let's not get into a semantic war over faith/religion/whatever word you want there. You know full well what I mean). Why should the outsider accept your faith? Remember, NO aspect of your faith can be taken for granted. Otherwise, you're not an outsider. "I would accept my faith because it is consistent with the Bible" assumes that being consistent with the Bible is a value. An outsider would not think that. An outsider would think there are no holy books, or that some other book is holy. If you approached Christianity the same way you approach every other religion, would it win you over?

What do you mean "y'all"? I did not address you, John Maybe he meant "y'all without distinction." Or is that "y'all with a distinction"? Tough to keep track.

"I see you like to chew. Maybe you should chew ON MY FIST!"

Cape Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas Vacation

Running Scared

Oh no no NO!. :)

Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. I actually knew the first time.

Nice.

Anyone who gives out of free will, whether it's one percent or 50 percent or more or less, is Biblically justified in doing so. The standard for giving in the New Testament for Christians is not a percentage, but a personal consideration based on faith, speech, knowledge, diligence and love. (Read ii Corinthians 8 for the build up to and follow through on this instruction). Using someone's level of giving as a basis for criticizing him or her for not believing enough or not loving enough is an intrusion on that person's privacy. The Bible never instructs Christians to evaluate someone else's practice of giving. Only your own.

More

Jim Carrey was not in Love at First Bite. Replay last turn.

I don't think Jim Carrey was in that movie.

Who said you're doing what Cornelius and his household did? They spoke languages. You don't. They did something you're not doing. They didn't fake it. You are faking it. I have no reason to believe the counterfeit you practice produces the same result as the Biblical genuine. Again, I have to ask, if you don't care what I think of what you (pretend to) do, why do you care so much about what I think of what you (pretend to) do? The people who don't care.... don't care. You clearly do. The only thing you can do by quoting the Bible is establish that the Bible makes a claim. So what? We already knew that. You haven't established that what you do is Biblical SIT, which ALWAYS produced human languages. Until you establish you're producing languages, anyone is justified in suspending belief in your claim. I'm just calling your bluff. What you do is indistinguishable from faking it and produces the same result as faking it. So what's the evidence that you're doing anything beyond faking it? BIble verses aren't evidence. They are the claim. What you're doing is not Biblical. If it were, it would produce Biblical results. If t h e results you produce are Biblical results, then you're speaking in languages. Fantastic. Identify the language. Pass go. Collect $1 million. You won't. You can't. Because you're faking it. You won't even try to identify the language, not because you don't want to tempt God. That's an excuse. You won't even try to identify the language because you know full well that I'm right and you're faking it. I'm wrong? Prove it. Or shut up.

Was he?

To clarify, there is nothing in I Corinthians to support the notion that SIT will result in something undetectable as a language. The Bible is clear in every instance of SIT that a language is produced. While it was common for no one to understand the language uttered (hence the need for interpretation) nothing in the verses indicate that God works supernaturally to have speakers produce utterances that will defy human attempts to verify that languages are, in fact, being produced. It is not something Paul would have anticipated or addressed. Frankly, it's an excuse for why linguistics never picks up a language. Want to talk about K.I.S.S.? Ok, let's. The simple reason linguistics never picks up a language is that languages are not being produced. No supernatural explanation required. Simple, stupid. Occam's Razor 1, Apologetic Excuse Making 0.

You can lie to yourself about what you do all you want. But you can't lie about what the Bible says. Your interpretation was analyzed, dissected and debunked pages and pages ago. Go on and continue lying about what it says. But you're fooling no one. Not even yourself.

Cliffhanger Sylvester Stallone The Expendables (any)

Here's a better question: ever wonder why it says "languages" even though what you're doing doesn't produce one?

No one said the tongues were understood by the people present in every instance. It was so in Acts 2. But that just proves they were languages, not bits and pieces of a mishmash of several languages you heard once while flipping channels in Indonesia. Employing a straw man is a sign of lack of confidence in your argument. Or lack of intelligence. I will assume A

Go ahead

Traxx!

I love how the person who claims to be tapping into the power of the Almighty Creator of the universe, Who is personally concerned with his inability to articulate a prayer request so He intervenes by personally performing an otherwise impossible feat, getting the person to speak in a language so secret that no one can detect it (even though the whole POINT of the feat is to demonstrate a power that could only be attributed to God)... Thinks I'm conceited.

Boooogerrrrr

If I say you are faking it when you pretend the sounds coming from your mouth are another language, and you tell me I am wrong, then it is evident that you want me (or anyone reading this) to believe you. That's about as safe a presumption as anyone can make. To say you don't want me to believe you is a lie. People who don't care whether I believe them don't post here on this thread. Haven't for months. Feel free to continue SIT and TIP. Doesn't affect me in any way. I think you're faking it. You've shown me nothing to believe otherwise. In fact, you twist yourself into knots to redefine and redefine and redefine the experience until it cannot be subjected to pesky questions like "Can you prove what you're doing is what you claim you're doing?" The simple answer is, you can't prove it because you are faking it. Not you guys. You turn a simple thing like Biblical SIT, which is empirically testable (and fails every time) and turn it into the worst kind of Rube Goldberg contraption: complicated, inefficient, filled with unnecessary steps... and doesn't even work. You're faking it. I've demonstrated how in natural terms that describe the practice and fit ALL the documentable evidence. You CLAIM you're doing something that cannot be explained in natural terms. In order for me (or anyone reading this) to accept your claim, you need to demonstrate how what you practice defies natural explanation. The Bible is not evidence. It is the claim. You may accept it as evidence. Go right ahead. But no one else is obliged to accept it as evidence. In fact, those who DO accept the Bible as evidence are not obliged to accept that what you practice is the same thing as Biblical SIT. Biblical SIT produces a language. What you practice does not. They are not the same thing. If you want me to believe otherwise, identify the language. If you don’t care whether I believe you, stop demonstrating that you DO care. Pretty simple, I would think.