Raf

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.

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!