Raf

I didn't realize I was a master of skepticism. I respectfully withhold judgment on the first person account provided here, for reasons I've expressed on another thread. If this makes me a master of skepticism, then guilty as charged.

Thank you. And thank you all for entertaining the logical consequences of agreeing with me, even though you disagree with me. It is noble.

By 42, i mean an Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. I don't have anything to propose that covers all the bases. Cessation theory would answer every practical question, assuming i'm correct, but does it stand up to Biblical, doctrinal scrutiny?

I don't know if anything changed, and if something did change, what it was. Maybe the cessationists are right? That would be consistent with the Bible being true but the current practice being false, wouldn't it? I don't know. I did my best to distinguish what i know from what i conclude as a matter of opinion. But i do not have a 42 on this.

Dude, Where's My Car 54, Where Are You? Oh my goodness. Certified lunatics are running ad campaigns, and if i put my ear on the steps, i can hear them!

Never meant to imply you were on trial, Tom. Just saying while I remain skeptical, I could see where you or others would find affirmation or confirmation of SIT in your account. Me, I've heard it before, always second or third hand,... And I'm off topic and will stop there. Good morning.

Actually...

How does he explain Paul thanking God that he speaks in tongues more than anyone in the church at Corinth (the more reasonable interpretation of the verse, seeing as I doubt he bragged about SITting more than ALL of them combined). Very confused about where you're headed with this, Steve. Not to make too much of it. Are you suggesting that the process of free vocalization, complete with its failure to produce a bona fide human language, IS what they were doing in the first century church? In effect, that God is instructing people to engage in free vocalization as a form of worship which, on a rare occasion, he will interject by inspiring an actual language as the rare exception and not the rule? If so, I submit as a preliminary response that such an interpretation would have floored Paul. Again, preliminary.

Yeah, he does. Interestingly, not only does he cite Samarin, but he also cites Rev. Vern and Landry! Ok, I'm kidding. He doesn't cite Landry (who, after all, was a college kid writing an undergrad paper). He does, however, cite at least one of the sources cited by Landry. So kudos to Landry for choosing respected sources! ;)

I'm actually in the middle of reading this one, and don't know where it's going. This writer tries to tackle tongues from a historical, Biblical and linguistic perspective. Who wants to lay a bet that he quotes Samarin? http://markmoore.org/resources/essays/tongues.shtml

Here's a link to page 2 of Steve L's thread on Acts 2. Here GSer Tom relates his account of attending a meeting where a speaker with no background in Aramaic began speaking in tongues and producing something close enough to Aramaic that Aramaic speakers present verified it. I cite and link without commentary:

Very cool. You won't mind if I retain my skepticism, although I could see why you would consider the account highly valuable and, as they say in court, probative.

Any reason to believe the speaker had or had not been exposed to Aramaic?

Please don't think Randi talked me out of what I did. I want to be clear that the only thing his challenge did was inspire introspection. My recognition that I was faking it was entirely internal and from my heart. I guess the best way to put it is, my realization was neither doctrinal nor practical. It was personal. There is no way for me to approach the doctrinal or practical issues with complete honesty if I am not being completely honest about what I am/was doing. As such, I am fascinated by what honest people who disagree with me will conclude. I'm also reluctant to weigh in too much because I know anything I say will be immediately suspect. As such, I am approaching this thread and Steve's from the role of a troubleshooter. Or maybe a troublemaker. Bottom line, anything I post should be taken at face value: agree or disagree, but document it. It should strengthen your argument even if I'm wrong. It may or may not change your mind if I'm right.

You could knock me over with a feather. And maybe a dictionary.

Bullets Over Broadway Chazz Palmentiri A Bronx Tale

I'm not going to challenge what you experienced at meetings if you accept my right to remain skeptical. With no info about the hearer who recognized the language, his proficiency in that language, the person who brought forth the language or that person's prior exposure to that language, I really have nothing to go on except your word that two people made this combined claim. Having lied about SIT and TIP for years, with all outward sincerity and zero malice, i would not put it past anyone else, especially second or third hand. My apologies if that sounds harsh. It just occurred to me that this line of discussion hijacks the thread and makes it non doctrinal. LOL

I do not believe that is the presupposition of this thread. I do invite you to the thread i started in About The Way, if you care to participate

FYI, Tom Hulce played the title role in Amadeus

I believe Steve handled that verse in another thread. It doesn't quite say that tongues of angels is a real option.

A very good doctrinal question. But assuming there is a correct answer, that does not mean what you're currently doing is genuine. If God wants you to speak in tongues and you're faking it, aren't you cheating yourself twice? First, by imagining that there's some benefit to lying to yourself and to Him. Second, by not pursuing whatever it is He really wants? If you're not faking, you don't have to answer.

Parenthood Steve Martin Roxanne

There was no one big thing, but let me tell you this much. There's a skeptic named James Randi. You may have heard of him. Something of a magician. Constantly on the hunt for supernatural and other hoaxes to debunk. I always make sure we call him for comment whenever we write our inevitable haunted hotel stories for Halloween. I guess I should mention that he's local. His foundation HQ was walking distance from my office. So this guy, The Amazing Randi, has a standing offer of $1 million to anyone who could provide conclusive proof of the supernatural. So I'm figuring ot would be so easy to go in, speak in tongues and collect, right? And I froze. I didn't want to be tested, not because God wouldn't allow it, but because I knew I was not being honest. I knew there was nothing coming out of my mouth that was divinely directed. And I thought back on other people: Karl K, who literally wrote the book on the rise and fall of TWI. Here's a guy who never believed in the resurrection. Spoke in tongues more than ye all. And that hot Goth chick I dated in college. Found out she was a PFAL grad. This was in the early 90s, when my heart was very much with TWI and its offshoots. I practiced SIT daily. Goth chick said,matter of factly, oh I faked it. My whole family faked it. These were folks who had nothing at all against Wierwille. In fact, they were sad to learn he had died. For years, I suppressed this. Randi's wager made it easy for me to finally confront the issue, at least for myself.

I I disagree. I think to consider that Paul is talking about anything other than human languages is to inject something into the text that isn't there.

I'm wrong. No bio. I'd be interested if anyone can find one.