Raf

Ok, so let's start with some obvious questions: How many languages were heard? If it's more than 12, that would seem to indicate there were more than 12 people SITting. No?

TWI talked a good game about thinking, but the truth is, they discouraged critical thinking skills. Look at johniam's ludicrous posts: too much complicated theology and not enough simple believing. REALLY? And what exactly is so complicated about expecting SIT to produce an actual language? How is that complicated, in any way, at all? Seems pretty uncomplicated to me. Unless, of course, you're covering up for a lie because you don't even have the personal integrity to admit it to yourself. That's not simple believing, folks. That's textbook denial.

Vote in the poll!

You know, johniam, none of the behavior you characterize as bullying would have even taken place had you not demanded proof from me that my position is correct. You can shut me up in a nanosecond by speaking in a language you've never learned AND proving it's really a language. But you can't. Because it's not. AND YOU KNOW IT. And it's killing you. So you attack me. It's pathetic, man. Steve, I mostly agree with you on verification. But you correctly place the burden on the identification of a genuine experience. If you can find one person with a genuine, I lose. Therefore, my premise is falsifiable and can be disproven. Go for it!

The term "inspirational manifestations" is not in the Bible. SIT is by inspiration, not revelation... Is an expression that cannot be found in the Bible. You are therefore barred from using those terms. P.S., johniam, I think it's fundamentally dishonest of you to cut my quote off where you did, as though I said nothing relevant after that. I specifically addressed the point you made, and it should embarrass you to ignore that. Then again, that would require humility.

I am not forcibly doing anything, nor am I implying anything. I am freely exercising my free expression and stating outright that we were all deceiving ourselves and, by extension, each other.

There is that likelihood.

No, it should not. Doctrinal would be a discussion about whether it's biblically accurate. This is not about doctrine at all.

And there ypu have it, folks. Now lets sit back and watch how this analogy really doesn't hold because it's easy to prove a counterfeit bill is counterfeit but impossible, impossible, I say, to verify that someone speaking a foreign language is actually speaking a foreign language.

Mayim Eva Ice Miami Vice

Reminds me of something the Count, R. Fitter, once said: too much complicated banking and not enough simple believing.

See? Just like the real thing, because it is real.

You and I were taught to make $2 by the same person. Mine look very much like yours. But mine are real.

Wrong answer! Examining the bill itself will not tell you whether it's a fake! (seriously, guys, do you even realize this is what you're saying when you argue that SIT can't be proved or disproved? Severe case of wishful thinking on your part).

And don't talk to me about checking the serial numbers or watermarks. There's no way to prove my $2 bills are fake. Nope. Lalalala I can't hear you....

He could so count! Naysayer. Just because your $2 bills were phony doesn't mean mine were, even though we both used the exact same method taught by the same Count R. Fitter to produce the bills. Prove mine are fake!

Kind of. Look at it this way: Count Roderick Fitter runs a crime syndicate whose specialty is printing fake $2 bills. His workers, a gullible lot, are grateful to him for teaching them how to make real money. One day, the Count's former employee, Jennifer Ursula Wine, realizes she's been producing a fake all along. She tries to tell tge other workers, but they don't want to believe her. They have it on good authority from the U.S. Government that $2 bills exist and have been circulating for years. Plus, they have endless testimony about how the $2 bills they have made benefitted them and their friends. Jen counters that even though she concedes that $2 bills exist, it doesn't mean the bills they have been producing are real. And so it was that many employees ignored Jen U. Wine warnings and continued working for the Count, R. Fitter.

Because there was no difference.

I agree. What I'm suggesting is that the fakery was so transparent that you can't distinguish teaching people the real thing from teaching people to fake it.

For those who led others into SIT. Imagine you were actively teaching someone how to fake it, but without them realizing that this was your goal. How different would your approach have been?

I remember once leading a group of people into the experience, and my assistant blurted out that it was just like baby talk. Holy cow, it was a confession right there for all to hear! I somehow managed to work past that with some pious sounding parries. I mean, we all KNOW it wasn't just baby talk, heh heh, right?

Yup

I'm not disputing that the Bible says believers can speak in tongues. If you disagree with that, ok by me. It's irrelevant to my point. My point is that I faked it. I encourage others who faked it to come clean. Period. My point ends there. In addition, I happen to believe we ALL faked it, but sincere people disagree with me. I'm okay with that too. But when I am asked to prove that other people are lying, well, that's when the gloves come off, because it's bullcrap to demand that I prove you're lying. Much easier for you to prove you're telling the truth. But you can't. So you say that something that's easy to verify is impossible to verify. Then you call me names and sic Wierwille on me. LO EFFIN L. My "to whom addressed" got all mangled in this post, for which I apologize. Good to see you, Geisha!

P.S. Johniam, next time you cite Wierwille as an authority on faith, please bring toilet paper. It really stinks up the place when you don't wipe. I'm really sorry you find this thread so threatening that you have to summon the spirit of that con man to denounce it, or falsely accuse me of bullying to justify your continued insistence on self-deception. I'm REALLY sorry about that. Ok, I'm lying. I'm not sorry about it at all. Actually, I'm kind of amused by it. It makes me giggle. In English.

Someone somewhere speaking in tongues must be speaking a known language. Just how many languages do they have in heaven anyway? Remember, this manifestation is supposed to be outward, irrefutable proof. How does babbling a language known to no one on earth prove anything? And how are we to distinguish tongues of angels from someone who's just faking it and hoping no one calls him on it? P.S. I'm not the bully here. You're the one who asked me to prove you're deceiving yourself. I just shifted the burden to where it belongs. If you say you're speaking in a language you've never learned, the burden to prove it is on you. So, identify the language. You say you can't because it might be, conveniently, the tongue of angels. Lol, but ok. Just repeat the experiment with someone else. Oh, they have tongues of angels too? Wait, so we can call in a linguist to at least determine that your angelic tongue and the second speaker's angelic tongue are the same language, right? What's that? Angels might have more than one tongue. Sh... You're making that up, right? Ok, but let me ask you a question.. How far down this road will you be willing to travel before you admit what I'm encouraging you (not bullying you) to fess up to right now?