Raf

John writes as though I never addressed the cockamamie nonsense of tongues of angels. Assuming such a language exists, it's a copout beyond cowardly copouts to suggest that anyone not speaking in a known language must be speaking the tongues of spirits. Such convenient nonsense

What constitutes proof... This isn't even a little complicated. Speak in tongues into a tape recorder. Spend the rest of your life trying to identify the language. Travel the world. Talk to linguists. Identify the language. It's really that simple. You can try it with TWI folk. You can try it with your family. You can do it yourself. Find one person who can produce a verified actual language that they've never learned. Spare is the third and fourth hand stories of people who spoke in tongues and there just happened to be a native speaker of the same language nearby. I call that urban legend, and if you don't agree, fine. Find the speaker and reproduce the result. Because what you're going to find is that speaking in tongues does not produce an actual language, which it would if it worked and was not being faked.

On the contrary, Steve, it can most certainly be proved to be genuine. It's impossible to prove or disprove prophecy. But tongues and interpretation can most certainly be proved beyond any hint of doubt. So why hasn't it?

I was thinking of that show with Kristy McNichol, which was just called "Family." So now that we've dodged that bullet, let's clarify: The last word of the first title should be the first word of the second title (with the exception of words like "the" and "a"). Since I kind of cheated on this clue (AFTER guessing, to learn I was wrong), I won't spoil it by jumping in with the correct answer. But how about a "cheating is okay after two days" rule to keep the game moving. Would folks be okay with that? Hint to the current clue: I was right about All in the Family. The second title starts with the word "Family" and has one more word.

Here's the thing: I'm not seeking to "prove" the experience is a farce for everyone who claims it. I've come to that conclusion, but I recognize that in doing so I am being less than polite to a lot of sincere people. But I'm not trying to prove it. I just needed to come clean and I invite others to do so. In fairness, though, I shouldn't have to prove other people are lying. If you're the one claiming that you have spoken in a language you never learned, it should be your burden to prove you have done so. And spare me the "tongues of angels" line that dodges the question of which language you're speaking: that should only work for one person, tops (unless angels have more than one language, which you have to concede is both speculative and more than a little silly. Then again, the whole notion of "tongues of angels" is a little silly, isn't it. I suspect Paul was using a bit of hyperbole there). And no, Corinthians does not qualify as proof that YOU spoke in tongues. I know the Bible says believers CAN do it. The issue is whether you have done it and are continuing to do it. So if you WERE to set out to prove you spoke in tongues, you'd kinda need to put your Bible down and put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. IF I were to ask you to prove it, to really prove it, I suspect you and I all know how that would turn out. But I'm not asking people to prove anything. I'm asking the people who WERE dishonest about this to admit it to themselves and, if they so choose, to everyone else.

Skyrider, "being deceived and deceiving others..." Hey, if that's the language that makes you most comfortable, go for it. As long as we all agree that the "deceiving others" part was not done with malice or ill will. I don't think anyone intended to fake anything or to lie to friends and loved ones. It was crucial that we lie to ourselves first. Everything that proceeded from that lie was therefore consistent. Personally, I don't see a substantive difference between variations of the word "lie" and variations of the word "deceive." Whichever works for you. I just think it needs to be real clear that no one's accusing anyone else of deliberate or malicious motives. Chockfull, I find it remarkably easy to dismiss the doctrine and practice of Oral Roberts, who saw a 900-foot Jesus who told him to build a health center that would combine medicine and faith healing, only to watch that center go bankrupt resulting in God holding Roberts for an $8 million ransom that, while sufficient to save Roberts, was insufficient to save the health center. I have NO QUALMS WHATSOEVER about rejecting anything he says on the subject of how God works in man.

A thought addressed to Steve: You said you believe Wierwille faked it, yet you have no reason to believe certain close family members are faking it. I consider those two statements inconsistent if those family members were instructed (directly or indirectly) by Wierwille's method. Can a faker lead someone to a genuine experience? I believe Wierwille faked it and taught others how to fake it. He did so by instructing people how to babble without thinking, then immediately suppressing their valid doubt that what they were doing was bogus. Remember in the class, how he IMMEDIATELY said the devil was trying to talk us out of what we were doing? That wasn't the devil. That was our conscience and integrity. The moment you uttered the first syllable, you lied. Here's the key: Wierwille exploited and encouraged that lie by validating you. That's easy to accept. I'm saying you lied. That's not easy to accept. It has the feel of a personal attack, and you (a good person) are not going to lie about something so important, special and holy. So you accept Wierwille (a ghost on a TV screen) and reject your own conscience and integrity because Wierwille is connecting you to the Almighty, while I am calling you a liar. I can see why it would be SO difficult to make the confession to yourself or to anyone else. The above is my opinion. Only you know with any certainty whether I am correct.

Ooh! I looked it up and I was wrong! Good one!

By the way, I never said anything about thinking this up hours ahead of time, or even minutes. It IS possible to make things up on the spot without rehearsing it. Most casual conversation works that way, but we'd be hard pressed to say most casual conversation is therefore divinely inspired.

He tells me to prove it, then gives me the ammo I need to prove it. First, let's clarify our terms: when I say "make it up on the spot," that is a DENIAL of any spiritual influence. Please do not now take that expression and turn it into an explanation for how the manifestation works, because it confuses the whole issue. "God inspires the message" and "I made it up on the spot" are two diametrically opposed propositions. What you have done is defined the former in such a way as to make it indistinguishable from the latter (which, I believe, proves my point, whether you see it that way or not). Further, in acknowledging that someone making it up on the spot (my definition) could have the desired effect of exhorting and comforting the audience, you have effectively refuted the experience of exhortation and comfort as proof that what you heard was a divinely inspired message (as opposed to the speaker "lucking out"). In other words, just because you heard what you needed to hear, that does not prove that what you heard was not "made up on the spot" (my definition) by the speaker. In fact, I contend that it is EASY to make up a message that exhorts and comforts the listeners in the room for the simple reason that the listeners in the room are primed for it. They WANT to hear something that exhorts and comforts them, so the platitudes we regurgitated on a regular basis were BOUND to have the desired effect because that is what we wanted to SAY and that is what we were hungry to HEAR. You know what we never heard? Lotto numbers. The location of a lost set of keys. Hell, tomorrow's weather. We never heard ANYTHING that could not be summed up in a Roma Downey speech at the end of a Touched by an Angel episode. In any event, I'm not asking you to prove that your experience is really divinely inspired. [in my opinion, you are kidding yourself and are perfectly free to continue doing so]. What I AM saying is that for those of you who are tired of lying about this for so many years and are afraid to admit it, it's OK to come out. No one's going to be mad. It's really quite liberating. One more thing: I keep using the words lying, lies and liars. I apologize for that, because it implies dishonesty and I don't think very many people are being dishonest about this. Rather, I think you lied to yourselves, internalized that lie to the extent that you really believe it AND have invested a great deal of your faith in its veracity, and now can hardly imagine renouncing that lie because doing so calls into question your very relationship with God. I get it. It took me years to finally admit this, for that very reason. So again I say to you, come clean. Remember, God already knows all this stuff, doesn't He? He knows your heart. He knows what you did and why. So you're not kidding Him. And if your relationship with God IS dependent on you keeping up this lie... how much of a relationship is that, really? Of course, my message there is addressed only to those who lied about it. Those who told the truth should continue to do so.

Have Archie and Edith adopt Steve Urkel or Alex P. Keaton, for example. If I am not mistaken, your B/A is All in the Family, with Family being the name of the second show. Did it have a longer title I'm not aware of?

I was going to suggest that both titles should contain more than 1 word.

Communal self deception. I TELL you I lied, and you're so invested in the lie that you demand proof. Holy... As for proving that others are lying, I think johniam's demand for proof is bass-ackward. You claim to have the ability to, on the spot, bring forth a message from the Almighty Creator of the Universe, and the burden is on ME to prove YOU'RE lying? Please.

Your turn!

I'll try another one: Sabrina in right, Jill in center, Kelly in left. Welcome to California. Play Ball!

No need for "Rises," although it would work if I had said "After a family moves into an old house, their little girl becomes tormented by visions of Batman coming up from the basement." In the interest of moving this along, I'll reveal it: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark Knight

Remarkable. Irrelevant, but quite remarkable.

As the first recipient of my lie, you deserve a direct apology from me. I just wanted to fit in, man. I REALLY wanted to fit in.

In case I wasn't clear on the rules, it can be two movies, two tv shows, or one of each. Doesn't matter. In this case, it's two theatrical movies. TV movies are fine, so long as they are really, really well known. You must use the full titles, not cutting into the middle (definite articles excepted).

I need something of that lady in the middle, but it ain't her name.

Here's a new game based on the Wheel of Fortune category. For those who don't know, "Before and After" in Wheel of Fortune is when two terms or expressions are united by a word at the end of one phrase and at the beginning of the second. For example: "God Bless You Dirty Rat" is a before & After tying "God Bless You" and "You Dirty Rat." I thought it might be fun to do the same thing with movie titles. So here's the gimmick: I describe the movie (mixing up the plots of the two movies and TV shows), and you figure out the before & after. Rather than give an example, I'll just start it off and you'll hopefully see what I mean. Ready? After a family moves into an old house, their little girl becomes tormented by visions of Batman in the basement.

I am going to change "reinforced self-deception" to "communal self-deception," as I think the term better conveys the point I'm trying to articulate. I appreciate what's being said here, and I can't force anyone to join me. But there are those, I am CERTAIN, who were like me for years who were afraid to admit it, because doing so calls too much into question. To those, I say stand up and tell the truth. God can handle it. He already knows, doesn't He? So just who is it you've been kidding? A lie cannot glorify God.

If I were to write a paper on reinforced self deception, I would devote chapters to johniam's post. I am encouraging people to search their hearts and admit something that is extraordinarily difficult to admit. I convinced myself I was manifesting the power of the Almighty. But does He really need me to lie for Him? I think not.

Yes! "That 70's Show" debuted in the 1990s and captured 1970s nostalgia.

You are a TOY!!!