Raf

For the sake of adding some clarity (???) Our story takes place in the early spring of 1978. You know, less than a year after the events of July and August 1977.

TWI and CES/STFI appear to be identical except on the issue of interpretation of tongues. TWI taught that tongues with interpretation will produce a message similar to (indistinguishable from?) prophecy. CES/STFI taught that interpretation will produce a message that is similar to what is spoken in a tongue during prayer, and will sound very different from prophecy. So in TWI, you would speak in tongues and interpret, and the interpretation would be something like "I'm God. I love you. I will never leave you or forsake you." A message to the people. Just like prophecy. But in CES/STFI, you would speak in tongues and interpret, and the interpretation would be something like "God, you are great and worthy of praise. Thank you for your everlasting and faithful love." Not at all like a prophecy. CES/STFI would never call TWI believers "self-deluded" liars, however, so they came up with an explanation for how they got it wrong while in TWI: Believers from TWI speak in tongues, and when it's time to interpret, they prophesy. That's why TWI interpretations sound just like prophecy. Because it is! [if anyone has better insight or correction into the above, please feel free to correct me on any point. Also, check my tenses: I have no way of knowing whether either group still teaches this]. In other Christian traditions, SIT stands on its own and is not accompanied by interpretation unless someone else is doing the interpreting. I am uninformed on how they view prophecy.

I'm not trying to brush you off. I'm saying I do not intend to argue the point any further, since clearly "argument" requires a mutually agreed upon foundation that we don't share. (I'm not talking about the Bible, but rather what constitutes an honest, intellectual debate). I applaud you for the courage of putting your position out there and subjecting it to review and rebuttal. I do. One thing I will add, however, is that if I seem fixated on "proof," I will remind you (once again) that I was the one from whom proof was demanded. I am not going to recant my position and the burden is not on me to prove it because I am not the one making the extraordinary claim. If you want to make an extraordinary claim and then declare, conveniently, that it is Satanic to expect you to prove it, we're done as far as any intellectual conversation is concerned.

I really had a lengthy response to each point here, and I wrote it all out. And then I hit delete. On purpose. I claim you are deluding yourself. You are accusing me of a Satanic tactic to get you to prove me wrong. I'd say that makes us even. Go in peace.

With respect, a biased observer's observations hardly prove anything. I could say "it sounds like gibberish to me," and it would not persuade you in the slightest. And rightly so. I'll go one further: When I did it, it WAS gibberish, and you very likely would have said "it sounded like a language to me!" So we're going to need a little bit more than your yea and my nay, don't you agree?

You know what the folks in Acts 2 did not say? They did not say, "gee, what language is that? They're speaking languages none of us has ever heard before. Must be one of the dozen or so languages they speak in heaven!"

Steve, I have no idea what you just said. Seriously. Read it three times. Broke it up into syllables and everything. Tried REAL hard. But I'll let it go.

I'll assume you meant psychiatric care, in which case, duly noted. Although if he were coughing up a lung, I would tell him to see a doctor and, I presume, that would be okay, right?

I just need to know if your thesis is intended to be read by Jesuit priests, Buddhist monks or angry atheists.

"There's that word again. 'Heavy.' Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the earth's gravitational pull?"

I should be clear, since Geisha kind of brushed at it, that I am not making a doctrinal argument. Chockfull's counterargument was doctrinal (if I'm not mistaken) and that's okay. I responded to the doctrinal point to the extent that I had to, differentiating my position from Satan's temptation of Christ in the wilderness. But I am not saying "true believers would not speak in tongues" or anything along those lines. You can still believe Christ and admit you faked this. That would not be a statement of doctrine. It would be a statement of honesty. What I am saying is that the liar VPW taught us how to lie by faking this experience and we should be honest with ourselves and renounce that lie. Those who reject my premise can quote scripture till the cows come home, and they will have missed my point, because my point is not about the rightness of the doctrine: it's about the lack of integrity in the practice. If, at some point, the moderators here choose to move this thread to the doctrinal forum, as would be their right, I will not dispute that judgment, but I would accept the move under protest.

I am not asking anyone to prove or disprove God, and let's get that straight right now: I am challenging the integrity of the speakers, not God. What I am challenging is the notion that what you have done has tapped into the power of God as promised in the scripture. I am not shedding doubt on the integrity of scripture, but DARNED straight I'm casting doubt on the integrity of TWI and the huckster/liar/fraud VPW. What he taught us to do was to LIE to God, ourselves and each other. That's my observation and my challenge. And I will NOT participate in the lie any further, and you should be OFFENDED by what he did to you in this regard. But you've convinced yourself that what you've experienced is of God AND that it would be a sin to seek to verify it! Counterfeits do not disprove the genuine. I agree. But the genuine disproves that it is a counterfeit! If you really think that seeking to verify SIT is Satanic temptation and a sin, there's really not much else for us to discuss. Godspeed. But don't dare preach intellectual honesty in the same breath!

FINALLY! A real challenge (JohnYouAre, take note: this is what an honest challenge looks like). The devil misquoted scripture and removed it from context in order to tempt Jesus to sin. I am not engaging in this action. Rather, I am repeating what tongues speakers say about speaking in tongues and asking them to prove what they are producing is actually a language, WHICH IS WHAT YOU CLAIM IT IS. Asking YOU (not God, YOU) to prove that you're really doing what you say you're doing is NOT TEMPTING GOD. You should be EXCITED about this opportunity! I said "Demonstrate it," to which you replied: The purpose of speaking in tongues is a sign to unbelievers, according to TWI. Hard to imagine that this "sign" consists of unverifiable gibberish that you have to take on "faith." But if that's what you believe, then we shake hands, part ways, and I bid you Godspeed. You have proven nothing, but at least you don't pretend you have. You want me to prove I faked it? Ok. Swear me in as a witness. "I do." I faked it. There. You have my testimony under oath that I faked it, that the sounds I made came solely from myself. This is not a supernatural claim. It is true on its face. It needs no verification because no one anywhere is a better source on the subject than I am. Oh, you want me to prove YOU faked it? No, you've got that backwards. You are the one making the supernatural claim. You are the one saying that when you do this, the sounds coming out constitute a real, detectable language. So the burden of proof is really on you. But you've already said you do not want to take that step. Godspeed. But don't fault me for not proving my point when you label my effort to prove my point as on par with a Satanic temptation. That's not intellectually honest. Yes, I disagree it is similar. In one case, God gave a scripture in one context that was misquoted by Satan in another context with the objective of getting Jesus to sin. In THIS case, you're saying God empowers you to do something and you can do it, and I'm just asking you to verify it (which would be a sign to unbelievers on YouTube AND Google). Bingo! Yes, I am doing that. And it's not nice. You can respond to that by proving what you're doing really is what you claim it to be, or by taking your ball and going home. I'm comfortable either way. But the second way, and I mean this with all due respect, you have proven nothing. True, honest intellectual discourse? I believe this discourse is true and honest, in the sense that you've engaged in it from the heart and really believe what you're saying. But it's not intellectual, because the position that God is working a demonstrable miracle in me as a sign to unbelievers but it would be a sin for me to demonstrate that miracle as an indisputable sign to unbelievers, intellectually, makes no sense whatsoever. Well, I've got Bulls hit, but GS has sensors, I think.

You're equating a request for verification of a God-given power that EXISTS to provide verification of God's power to the temptation of the Lord by Satan? REALLY? "If you are the Son of God, God will do something He has not promised to do upon my request" is the temptation of Satan in the wilderness. "YOU say God is doing something demonstrable. Demonstrate it" is my challenge. If they are the same thing, then guilty as charged, I am Satan. But horsehockey.

From the quiz on the original post: "You answered 31 out of 33 correctly — 93.94 %" Woohoo!

JohnYouAre, I accept that you feel no need to prove the language you're producing by the power of Almighty God as indisputable proof of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and His lordship in your life by subjecting your God-given ability to basic examination and verification, and I am prepared to shake hands and say go in peace. See, the way I see it, you have claimed that God has enabled you to, on demand, speak in a language you have never learned. I am willing to entertain that assertion because I think it speaks well of the power of God. In fact, I am willing to go a step further and PROVE you are right by recording your utterance and subjecting it to independent scrutiny that would resolve the issue without a hint of doubt, proving to skeptics the world over that this is not merely an article of faith for you, but a documented and irrefutable display of God's awesome power. You are not willing to take that extra step. Which tells me, JohnYouAre, that I clearly have more faith in your God than you do. Why do you suppose that is? (Hint: It's because we both know you're lying. This is the part where you admit it).

If I were to haul johniam into court on charges of speaking in tongues, he would be found not guilty for lack of evidence. If he were charged with THINKING he spoke in tongues, he'd be convicted. Self deception at work.

How convenient!

I wonder if the poll results would be different if those who answered yes were required to identify the language that they produced by speaking in tongues. Nah.

My Fair Lady

I wholly agree with you, Geisha. In fact, I said as much when I first mentioned the tongues of angels copout on this thread.

Tell me about the school and the committee.

Clue: first is a horror movie with a longer than average name. The second is a Spike Lee joint.

"Devil's" advocate: Steve, do you agree that, in most cases, a genuine example of speaking in tongues should be more likely to produce an earthly language than a heavenly? I mean, the alternative would be either everyone speaking the same heavenly language (which should be fairly easy for a linguist to detect, even if the language itself cannot be recognized/identified) or that there are scores, nay hundreds, of heavenly languages (giving rise to the question, WTF? I mean, why?).

Steve disagrees with me. He has not attacked me. He is approaching this subject with integrity. Hope I've been clear on THAT.