Raf

The Madness of King George of the Jungle

Al Pacino Dick Tracy Charlie Korsmo Charlie was "The Kid" in Dick Tracy. He was in at least one other ridiculously well known movie, one other very well known movie, and appeared as a teenager in another lesser known but still identifiable flick.

I agree. The King James is a little confusing because it uses "Though" in the first word of that sentence. Other translations make the conditional nature of what Paul is saying much more clear, just by translating "though" as "if." When I read that sentence, my takeaway is: "I don't care what language you speak when you speak in tongues -- if you don't have love, it doesn't really matter." The idea of "tongues of angels" is entirely speculative, since it is not defined in the Bible and only presented as a hypothetical in I Cor. 13:1. We cannot assume that spirit beings require a system of communication that is literally like human communication. When God talks to Gabriel and Michael, does He use words? Does my brain use words when it communicates with my hands to type on this keyboard? Fact of the matter is, we have no idea how angels communicate, and this verse does not answer that question. Jesus says a little bit of faith can cause you to tell a mountain to jump into the sea and have the mountain obey. No one, including Jesus, ever tested that, and we know why: it is not a literal truth. It's a hyperbole. The reality behind what's said here is that faith (in God) is powerful. I believe tongues of angels falls into that category. It doesn't seem to me to be presented as a literal possibility, but as a highly exaggerated expression of what SIT does produce. There is PLENTY of Biblical evidence (all documented in my prior post) to support that "tongues of men" is literal in that same verse. Just my opinion.

I think, in fairness to TWI, that there is some kind of balance to be worked out here. As a fellowship coordinator, I could see myself getting quite frustrated if people were constantly interrupting with questions or going off into their own conversations while I (or someone else) was trying to teach. While I don't see myself saying "this is not a social hour," I certainly could see myself saying something equivalent, in that specific context. It's a matter of respect, not only for what's being taught, but for the work that the person did in putting that teaching together. If what you are saying, John, is broader than that context, then let me apologize immediately for my misunderstanding. Obviously, I agree that TWI was an oppressive, legalistic regime (I neither know nor care what it is now). I'm just not sure about that specific example as a demonstration of it.

Naked Gun 2.5?

I'm going to say two quick things and leave it at that for doctrinal. First, I am not joking, and it strikes me as a little patronizing to suggest that I am. Second, I also find it patronizing, sorry, to be barraged with a ton of scriptural references with practically no difference in exposition from what we were taught in TWI, presented as though somehow, this is the first time I'm seeing this stuff. I don't think you're coming off this way on purpose. I respect that you're genuinely surprised to hear this kind of thing coming from me. I'm just sharing my feelings on how it comes off to me. Reasonable minds may differ. It's not the Bible or Paul I am questioning. It is a practice, a modern practice that fails to yield what i believe are Biblically predicted results. The Bible is the sole arbiter of what Biblically predicted results are. I laid out my case using nothing but scripture. With respect, I believe the response to my case about Biblically predicted results uses nothing but conjecture. A fervent defense of Biblical SIT does nothing to bolster claims of modern SIT, for it is the very equation of the modern practice as the Biblical that is in question. I am as free to disagree with you as you are with me. You are perfectly entitled here to question and challenge my beliefs, as I am yours: respectfully. So question and challenge away. But don't patronize me.

Mark, I'm grateful for the right to disagree on this. I'm just going to leave it at that and bid you goodnight. Peace.

Y'all odd. I know that's namecalling, but still. Odd.

Mark, there is a thread in About the Way that this thread is an offshoot of. I will disregard the assertion that those who don't speak in tongues disagree with Paul. We disagree with a practice that claims to be Biblical but does not, in our opinion, yield Biblical results. This thread, appropriately in doctrinal, is currently exploring what those Biblical results should be. You are obviously free to disagree with me, as I am to disagree with you. But we are disagreeing with each other. I am only disagreeing with Paul if you are correct about modern SIT being the same as Biblical SIT. Honest Christians disagree about this issue today, and while you're perfectly entitled to SAY I am disagreeing with Paul, I am equally at liberty to dismiss that assertion. It is very much in question.

Well, that the message would not be discernible by the speaker or the average listener is to be expected, scripturally, so that really isn't saying anything. I agree that it's not a language, but if we are to expand the definition of language to include as much as has been included on this thread, then I contend that the clear terms of scripture are being abandoned in favor of extra-Biblical claims of what glossa means. I am perfectly content to recognize Mark's (and Chockfull's) right to disagree with me in this regard. I just don't think I would get away with expanding the definition of glossa while offering theological support but no scriptural support for such an expansion. I mean, when you consider the demand for scriptural support that glossa means human language in the first place, which brought me back to this thread, you have to wonder why scriptural support for the vast expansion of its meaning has not been demanded as well. No disrespect intended, Mark.

But then, what is?

Nice.

Noticing a pattern (not that there's anything wrong with it) that WordWolf's clues always seem to describe the second movie first. Just an observation.

I was even wrong after cheating! ;)

To be clear, I was referring to Waysider's contribution and not Mark's. But if you're good with both, then so be it. Personally, while I have no problem with Waysider's contribution, I question its placement here. But again, if you're good with it, far be it from me to complain.

Interesting take, but I quickly lost count of the number of times I was disagreeing with this guy. I feel like I went from New York to Los Angeles by taking a Concord jet for a two or three hour flight, where he went from New York to Los Angeles by taking a boat to England, a train to France, a bicycle to Yemen, a camel to Afghanistan, walking to Pakistan, a prop plane to Hong Kong, a pogo stick to Beijing, a slingshot to Tokyo and swimming to Los Angeles. Sure, we reached the same place. But dang.

Thank you for pointing that out, Geisha, because it has been repeatedly asserted that what I am attacking is the Bible itself, which is NOT TRUE. I am attacking what I believe to be a phony, counterfeit practice, which is why I placed this thread in About the Way and not in Doctrinal in the first place. Yes, there is a doctrinal assumption, and Doctrinal is the place to argue that. Yes, there are doctrinal implications, and Doctrinal is the place to argue that. But I am not attempting here to argue with the Bible. I am attempting to argue from it. If the Bible says an action will have a result, you take an action and fail to produce that result, then the logical conclusion is not that the Bible is wrong, but that the action you took was not the action described in the Bible. It is and remains a false accusation that this thread attacks the Bible's integrity. This thread takes the Bible at its Word. It does not take the modern practice of SIT at ITS word. I think most Christian readers of this thread are sharp enough to know the difference, especially now that it's spelled out.

The discussion in Doctrinal is underway, where it should be. I laid out my reasoning with pounds of scriptural reference, and it seems to be understood now that I base my doctrinal assumption on the fact that glossa in the Bible is always a reference to either the physical organ of the tongue (literally or figuratively) or a human language. I apologize to readers here if I was unclear about that the first 7,000 times I said it. In any event, there's one participant new to the discussion who asserts that language is something God has creative control over and that He can make up any language He likes to bestow on us as we SIT. No scripture to back up that this is what's happening or to be expected in SIT, but I suppose demands for scriptural documentation only apply when one is questioning a modern practice that's not living up to Biblical expectations. In any event, I can't argue it. In terms of logical debate, this is known as an appeal to probability or, more specifically in this case, an appeal to possibility. This is when an argument concludes something is true or likely merely because it is possible. I'm not arguing that it's impossible. I'm arguing that it's non-scriptural, a doctrinal difference. To defend the practice, an argument not made in scripture is asserted to bolster the practice and bring our experience in line with the Bible -- by changing what the Bible clearly predicts, in my opinion. Thus, I can only point out that the scripture, when speaking for itself, does not appear to be making any such assertion. Rather, it fits my view that this is a retrofit designed to explain why modern SIT isn't producing human languages (my opinion stated as fact, yet to be contradicted by objective analysis and only contradicted by unverified and unverifiable anecdotes I haven't even been asked by the tellers to believe). So we're back to square one: If you do not agree that SIT is supposed to produce human languages, we do not have a common ground and we disagree with each other on doctrinal grounds. You are free to think I'm wrong based on our disagreement in scripture, and I bid you nothing but peace. I am free to think you're faking it based on no human language being produced (see note above) and the perfectly natural, non-spiritual, human capacity for free vocalization, which seems to me the far more likely explanation for what we did, and you have no grounds to disagree with me other than the doctrinal assumption. There is no more need for you to be offended by my conclusion than there is for me to be offended by yours. I believe I have approached the scripture honestly and at face value. I believe SIT in the Bible produces human languages. I believe modern SIT does not. I believe free vocalization perfectly describes what people do when they say they're speaking in tongues. I conclude modern SIT is free vocalization and not Biblical SIT. I dispute the injection of "code," "secret language" and other such interpolations into what I think is the clear, Biblical meaning of glossa, and I respect the right of others to disagree with me on that. Hey, if you're going to do everything you can to make SIT unprovable, I can't stop you. Nor can you demand I prove you're wrong, for the disagreement is no longer on terms that have a common ground. TnO, your admonition was well-considered and well-voiced. I deeply appreciate it and intend to take it to heart. I see no reason why you should not issue such a firm, Biblically based critique of the tone of this conversation and its participants. If you'd like to contribute actively to the conversation, by all means, do so. If you'd rather just read along, that's your privilege too. And if you feel the tone of the conversation has hindered the content, you have every right to point that out. It did not fall on deaf ears.

I was thinking of Seeking a Friend for the End of the World, but since I got no words right, that's obviously not the answer. I THINK I know now, after cheating, but even then I'm not really sure.

We're not in agreement, but hey, can't argue with you.

Chockfull will need to decide for himself whether we're going off topic here. I just wanted to clue Mark in as to where i was coming from. I have no need or want to challenge him. If he didn't join the other thread, it was for a reason.

I do not believe it can be a language no one has ever used. That is beyond the clear meaning of scripture. Thanks for your input, Mark. I no longer believe SIT is a manifestation of anything more than human creativity and our hunger to fit in. But I do not begrudge anyone the right to disagree with me.

With respect to DuctTape, I don't think anyone should have to consider this issue who doesn't want to. He's entitled to dismiss my point of view on any grounds he wants. I have no argument with him.

Thank you, TnO, but I have over the past few days made a concerted effort to restrict my criticisms to arguments and positions rather than direct them at people. I stopped the namecalling and asked multiple times that this action be reciprocated. Instead, the namecalling continued and intensified. Now, a decision to finally drop the namecalling is presented as though it were some kind of favor to me for writing a post? No, I do not need a time out. What has been directed at me these past few days is retaliatory, and while I recognize that, I do not have to accept it, put up with it, or reward it. Happy to review any issues you'd like to review. But suggesting I cool down after I have already done so misses the point. I call it like I see it, too.

More power to you.