Raf

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.

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.