Raf

True. The only thing the new description adds to the previously cited one is the comforting "that's just the devil trying to talk you out of it" that I described earlier. The quote I just cited, I have to say, is rich in content, and I say this without judgment as to whether it proves one side or another. It does neither. But in presenting it here, the best I can say is that I have not done it justice, citing it for such a limited purpose.

LOL. Thanks for understanding, Socks. I don't know what happened in that room in Northern California. I suspect. You suspect. Our suspects are suspect, at least to each other. Stalemate. In other news, (I should never have promised not to spur this thread along, but sue me), I came across this description this afternoon. I don't want to mischaracterize it, but I'll let you guys (paging chockfull) be the judge: http://www.frame-poythress.org/linguistic-and-sociological-analyses-of-modern-tongues-speaking-their-contributions-and-limitations/ Can I get an amen and a HS (and I don't mean Hholy Sspirit)? This paragraph is deeeeep in Rev. Vern's paper, and it's strictly hypothetical. I THINK (please check me on this) Vern is in the middle of a discourse that presumes, for the sake of argument, that SIT died out with the apostles and everyone doing it today is free vocalizing. Even assuming such, it is possible to tell the [presumed] truth in such a way that you're basically being an a-hole and helping no one, Vern seems to be saying to me. Thoughts? (I'm not quoting Vern here to prove my point or raise a new line of "argument," but rather to point out the startling similarity between a hypothetical well-intentioned but erring coach and the very real erring VPW. In other words, given the opportunity to invent a Biblically inaccurate charlatan to coach a believer into free vocalization while calling it speaking in tongues, Vern "invented" Victor Paul Wierwille, right down to the word choice. Amen and HS). (In case you didn't catch it, my acronym of HS = Divine Solid Excrement).

Yes, but I could see where Corinthians might lead one to believe that the language produced might not be known of men. I do not accept that interpretation, but I have to concede that interpretation's existence and allow for the fact that some people may hold it.

I remember at least once posting about what I called "The Epistle of Chris Geer to the Americans." I remember people being astonished that Geer would have the arrogance and gall to write an epistle. I owe Geer an apology in that regard, as the use of the word "epistle" was my choice, not his, and epistle is, after all, just another word for "letter." So Chris Geer wrote a letter to Americans shortly after the 1989 schism. That letter is posted on GS, and has been for a while. I don't know that I ever acknowledged that this letter was the very document I referred to as "The Epistle of Chris Geer to the Americans." In any event, and for what it's worth, enjoy. Or don't. ;) http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/waydale/waydale-miscellaneous/chris-geer-explains-what-happened-in-the-way-via-his-considerations-newsletter.html

Maybe, but you cleverly articulated the problem of such anecdotes as "proof." . It's similar to Tom's story of the Aramaic SITter he recounted in Doctrinal, or chockfull's earlier account of the English speaker in this thread. You are in the impossible position of presenting the story in all sincerity as true without the current capability of examining what happened and determining its underlying veracity to the satisfaction of a skeptic. I am in the impossible position of being unable to disprove it for the same reasons. We are, as far as it goes, at a standstill. I'm fascinated, but I suspect that a further examination of the incident would reveal that you are innocently mistaken (just as you suspect a further examination would reveal you were NOT mistaken). The problem for each of us is that a further examination is impossible, so "what would happen" becomes a matter of unbridled bias, for me as well as you. Which is unfortunate, because it would seem to settle the matter as far as my portrayal of "all of it" being non-religious free vocalization. It would still have little impact on the argument that "some, many or most" of it is not genuine, Biblical SIT. Though I know this position is not shared with those following this thread, I still contend that genuine SIT will produce a human language, not merely something that is language-like that can be decoded by God. But that's just me. Those of you who disagree are free to do so, of course. It's not worth fighting over, IMO.

Love it.

Does it count if I knew that and didn't respond because I didn't want to pick the next clue? I can jump in, if you'd like.

By its very existence, every religion slanders all other religions in some way. You're wrong about Abraham. You're wrong about Ishmael. You're wrong to reject Jesus. You're wrong to exalt Jesus. My Jesus is better than your Jesus because He's God. My Jesus is truer than your Jesus because He's not. You're wrong to reject Mohammed. You're wrong to accept Mohammed. You're all wrong and should be quiet people of peace, like us... Tolerance demands that we put religious differences aside, especially when those differences compel us to do unto others what we would not have them do unto us. None of my business if two gay people want to get married, and it's only the church's business if the gay people want to be married in that church. The notion that The Way does not slander other groups is preposterous on its face. Its very existence is a slander against all Christianity that came before, at least since the year 99.

Child abuse. No other word for it.

TWI would like everyone to know that we only malign those who see us for what we are and inform others of the truth. We do not malign hamburgers and other people who are scarcely worthy of our respect as fellow human beings.

This will amuse you all: I wrote a few things down, and it got to be pretty long, in response to the most recent posts. Then I reviewed my masterpiece and removed any comment I had already made in one form or another. My preceding post comprised everything that survived this editing process.

It was Asians.

Does anyone have an interpretation? I do not recognize this tongue.

I suspect this conversation has reached a natural ending point. While I welcome further discussion, I don't intend to spur it along. Thanks for hearing me out.

No offense taken

Maybe they're all SITting around and waiting for an invitation. (Ducking)

;)

I never said stupid or asinine!

I think I'll move away from even sounding like I'm trying to prove or disprove anything. It wasn't how I started this thread, and I think we'll all agree it's been explored ad nauseum. I'll concede (as I always have) that I cannot prove my point. Your account fits in with the type of account I've previously addressed. If you or anyone else draw value from that, far be it from me to stop you. As long as you're not demanding I account for it (and it looks like you're not), I see no need to demand that you prove it. We're good. On the issue of Acts 2, we're in some pretty firm disagreement. I don't see anything in Acts or Corinthians to suggest that SIT should result in anything other than a human language save a hyperbolic, hypothetical statement by Paul that there's such a thing as "tongues of angels" that SIT can produce. Like "faith that moves mountains," I believe "tongues of angels" was posited as an Nth degree kind of possibility (which is to say, not possible). That's my opinion; take it or leave it. Other statements in Corinthians seem to indicate that the people present generally won't know what language is being produced, but I don't see any indication that it's presumed to be non-language. WHAT is being said is a mystery because it's not interpreted, not because it's not a language. Could I be wrong? Of course I could be wrong. But I think I'm looking at a plain reading of Acts and Corinthians rather than an apologetic that seeks to answer why SIT is not producing a language. I propose a simpler answer: what we did is not producing a language because it's not SIT. It's free vocalization. With that reading (I'm looking at you, chockfull), the question is not "what changed between the first century and today?" The appropriate questions become "what did they do that we're not doing? Can we do what they did? And how?" And I have no answer to that.

Point of amusement: the poll is meaningless, but the last vote was another confessor (welcome) and the one before that thinks it works the way Pentecostals say. And CES has zero votes

Amen, socks

I do not wish to be disrespectful here, so let me just say that i have explained my skepticism regarding such accounts before and that Samarin offers a disapproving explanation for them in his study, cited on this thread. Consider this a blanket statement on my part to absolve me of any need to venture into the distasteful position of policing other people's experiences. In other words, i'm going to shut up in the intetest of politeness. Don't read into it.

Nice. Guess what? ;)

Well, maybe not "embracing." ;)

;) I may meet Randi this week.