Raf

Yeah. The first pastor was leveling with you. You shoulda listened to him, Tink.

I wasn't using the movie to prove my point. I was using the movie to illustrate it. using the movie to prove my point would not have worked because in the end their hunger was satisfied by their imagination the real world doesn't work that way except when it comes to speaking in tongues

No, no, I said "IF" you say. "IF." I was explaining why I felt that shuts down conversation. OK!

Well, shoot, I was getting hungry until you said that. Remember that scene in Hook when all the Lost Boys are having dinner and Peter notices that there's just NOTHING on the table, until the end of the scene when he learns to use his imagination and he can finally see the food and play with it and there's a huge foodfight and he's completely satisfied with his meal and his drink? Remember that scene? Heartwarming, wasn't it? Here's what's missing from that scene: no matter how satisfied those kids felt, they still had not had anything to eat or drink. No amount of imagining you ate and drank will satisfy your real hunger and thirst. Well, except maybe in Neverland.

Chockfull, I don't take the "Satanic" thing personally. As I said, I'm calling you deluded at best, a liar at worst. We're beyond even. It's ok. But you have to recognize that once you have labeled the attempt to ascertain whether you are REALLY producing a language a "Satanic temptation," you have effectively shut the door on that line of inquiry. I can now not prove my belief that you've (innocently and with every good-hearted intention) fooled yourself into thinking there's a genuine spiritual experience going on. Hey, if that's your position, far be it from me to rob you of it. All I'm saying is that you cannot, cannot turn around and argue that I have not proved my point when it comes to YOUR experience. I have not proved my point because, frankly, you won't let me. Or God won't let you let me.

JavaJane: How do you know you didn't counterfeit tongues? Why, Ol' VP TOLD you that counterfeiting tongues was impossible! SO you couldn't counterfeit it if you tried! Let's be fair: what he said/meant was that a genuine experience of producing a language you've never spoken before cannot be brought forth by a Satanic or demonic power. Speaking in tongues MUST be of God, if it produces the tongues of men or of angels. Wierwille was very clever here: he said it could never be counterfeited on a spiritual level: if you are REALLY speaking in tongues, then it REALLY is of God. But he never said it couldn't be faked. He just avoided that subject altogether. If we filled in that it couldn't be faked, that was our doing, not his. Then, of course, he taught us how to fake it and discouraged us from admitting it. Chockfull: If God gives you neither a fish nor a stone, and you decide to make a bowl of chili instead and call it a God-given fish, I'm not going to doubt you ate something. It's just not a God-given fish, no matter what you call it. Of course, you won't let us look at the chili to determine whether it really is a fish, so...

A. Because the more you fake it, the more authentic it sounds. And the more you do it in private, the more you invest yourself in the lie. B. Oh, you meant what's the nonsense reason they TRIED to give? Yeah, well, it was building up your inner, new man. You know, your physical body needs exercise. So does your spirit. (But the real answer is A.)

Should I just reveal?

Out of the Way: A Journey from Voluntary Self-Deception to Freedom

CES actually short-circuited this logic by claiming that TWI's interpreters were actually manifesting prophecy. So TWI people must conclude that CES people are faking interpretations or, at least, allowing their understanding to interfere with a genuine interpretation. Yes, I agree with you, Waysider. But the trap you laid out won't spring.

True, I left out possible replies that would be either more diplomatic or reflect uncertainty on the part of the person responding. Mea culpa. Your reproof is well taken. Only you know deep in your heart whether you experienced something supernatural or you imitated the method (not the sounds) out of a sincere hunger to manifest a spiritual gift. My belief is mine, but you are not obligated to agree with me. That's what I believe happened in TWI. We were encouraged, under enormous peer pressure, to start speaking. Once we started, we were immediately discouraged from even thinking that we were faking it. Such doubt was devilish, we were told. People we loved and respected were right there with us, encouraging us, validating us, congratulating us. And heck, it IS in the Bible. I contend that the initial erasure of doubt by Wietwille was the point of no return in our self-deception. Everything that came after was from a sincere heart, and calling it a lie seems, even to me, a bit cruel. But not more cruel than the lie itself. They invaded my hunger for the things of God and filled it with a phony experience. That offends me, more than the accusation that I've resorted to Satanic methods to prove my point, more than the fact that they charged me money for the privilege of turning myself into a deluded follower. Yes, I am singularly responsible for what I did. It pained me to come to this realization. But God has known it all along, hasn't He. So the only person I was kidding was myself and all of you. So I apologize for what I did. If you did not lie, wow. I'm in awe. In fact, as politely as I can say something so "cruel," I can't honestly say I believe you. Sorry if that upsets you. It should upset you. The question is why should you be upset. How you approach that question determines the course of our conversation.

For once I agree with JohnHeIs.

Let's put it this way, Steve, and take me out of it on a personal level: if you think it is devilish to test your practice of speaking in tongues to determine whether you're actually producing a language or it's just gibberish that you made up without any supernatural interference, then there is no way for you to prove me wrong (and we have already agreed that proving me right is, in a real sense, impossible. Proving me wrong should be easy, except that doing so is caving in to a Satanic temptation). How bleeping convenient.

I guess your husband won't vote in the poll, huh. Oh well. Makes me wanna buy a Chevy. Like a Rock! Yeah, yeah, Like a Rock!

Wait now just hold the bleep on one bleeping minute. You define yourself as a Catholic AND Buddhist AND Pagan? And you speak in tongues? Loving it. Like a rock! Sing it with me everybody! Like a rock!

Lying is such a harsh word. If it softens it at all, I am not accusing anyone of anything I am not confessing to. I got three fingers pointed back at myself on this one.

Oh, man, thia is gonna be good! This. I meant this. I do not know Thia and can't vouch for her beyond some bathroom wall commentary.

I wouldn't say that, ws. I would say JavaJane has a point geisha should consider. Both jj and chock take for granted that their SIT is real. There's no reason they should hold back from drawing conclusions that rely on that assumption. It's not exactly on topic, but it answers a question that was marginally on topic. True, it doesn't prove anything as it relates to the overall topic of this thread, but it doesn't claim to, so ...

Curious to know his capacity for intellectual freedom. If his professors are Dawkins and Hawking, he's wasting his time. If they are Robertson and Billy Graham, he is not advised to question the authorship or historicity of Acts. Just want to know how free he can be.

Yes

I do not think honest intellectual debate requires you to provide evidence, necessarily, although it would be nice. I do think shutting down inquiry by declaring it Satanic is, how can I put this, inconsistent with honest intellectual debate. There's a significant logical fallacy at work in comparing arguments over the existence of God with arguments over the legitimacy of an individual's practice of speaking in tongues. They are not the same kind of argument at all. It is a false equivalency. God is, most would agree, not provable or disprovable (I'm disregarding the TWI argument that SIT is, in fact, proof of the existence not only of God, but of Christianity itself). He is not measurable. One cannot experiment on His existence. One can make an argument that usually ends with the theist saying God has always existed and had no Creator, and the atheist saying "well, if you can say that about God, then I can say that about the universe." As far as argument goes, you've reached a stalemate. Tongues is not immeasurable. It can be produced on demand in the senses realm. It can be heard and recorded. The recording can be examined by competent linguists and others fluent in multiple languages. Of course, suggesting that one actually DO this to verify that the tongues produced are really languages and not the made up gibberish of the speaker is Satanic, so... In one case, the argument reaches a stalemate because there is a logical, rhetorical impasse. In the other case, the argument reaches a stalemate because continuing the argument is to Satan's advantage. So...Ok.

A little unfairness at work here. My position has effectively been shut down by the Declaration that my line of inquiry is satanic. No honest discussion of my position is therefore possible

For what it's worth, geisha, I think your post is VERY doctrinal. Not rude or anything like that, but certainly an exploration of what God makes available, why, and to whom. Sounds doctrinal to me. (Not that there's anything wrong with that).

You're right, though, excy. I should probably just let it go and be done. But this is a forum for people who are healing from their involvement in TWI. I kind of thought people might find the subject matter and the challenge interesting. If you don't, that's fine. There are other threads. Have at them. This thread rather obviously bores you. I can't force you to be interested in it.

That's nice, excy. But I'm not arguing doctrine.