Raf

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.

If I'm right: A madman stalks a group of teenagers harboring what they thought was a tragic secret about a shared experience from July and August of 1977.

No question, Waysider. I said it before and I'll say it again: they can attack me, criticize me, accuse me of working for ol' splitfoot, sic the ghost of VP Wierwille on me... You know what they can't do? Speak in tongues. At least, they can't prove it. They can't identify the language. Because somehow God's idea of irrefutable proof is synonymous with the inability to verify it. How do you know that you know that you know if you can't prove it?

Match Game of Thrones

I put the poll up to invite people to engage in self-reflection and, perhaps, confession. It doesn't shock me at all that people would be eager to validate their practice by clicking "it's real and it works like I've been doing it for years!" You know what it would impress me? Identify the language you're producing. Yeah, yeah, I know. Tongues of angels.

Yes, I do find some amusement in the rather obvious fact that people who deluded themselves years ago continue to delude themselves today. By the way, John, you can huff and puff all you want. That doesn't make it a language.

Yes! And kudos to you for remembering Dance Fever!

More than two days having passed: All in the Family Affair Next clue: In this talent competition, the contestants compete to see who can perform hip-hop, jazz, ballet and modern routines so effectively that they reach a body temperature of 101 degrees.

Chockfull, as I said to Steve, we can respectfully recognize that we have reached different conclusions and, although my position makes a judgment about yours, I can certainly choose not to press the issue and bid you peace in your prayer life and your relationship with God. Ultimately, my accusation is meaningless and should have no bearing on your relationship with God. Steve has chosen to engage me on a respectful level, and we're having a respectful dialogue about it that could, in the long run, prove quite interesting and instructive to both of us. As such, I'm not going to "leave him alone" unless he asks me to stop, at which point I'll shake his hand, as it were, and thank him for carrying it as far as he was willing. But certain others are insistent on my "proving" my point and willing to put me in league with the father of lies for the audacity of my position. If there is any disrespect in my tone, please be assured it is directed at such an argument, and not at you. Incidentally, I do not blame anyone who wishes to take me on with hostility. After all, I am calling them liars (although, to be fair, I'm not impugning their honesty or integrity because I believe they are lying to themselves first -- any lie that emanates from that is well intentioned. They think they are defending God Himself, and I cannot fault them for their zeal, misplaced though I think it may be). In other words, stick around and contribute to the dialogue if you'd like, but a word of caution: you may not like. :)

Is it necessary? Is it beneficial? Does it help? All valid questions worth exploring. Are you really doing it or are you faking it to fit in? Because if your answer to that question is "I'm faking it," the answer to your earlier questions don't much matter to your experience. There would have to be some other explanation to the benefits or comfort you experienced. Objectively, if it is true but you faked it, it would still have every benefit ascribed to it by scripture. It would just mean that you haven't tapped into it. Say I benefit from loving God and I can benefit from speaking in tongues. I claim to speak in tongues, but deep down, I know (or maybe I don't know: I've fooled myself) that I'm faking it. But I can see the benefit! Does the benefit prove I spoke in tongues? No. It may prove that I merely love God, and that is where the benefit came from. Johniam is convinced that he personally receives benefits of exhortation and comfort when people practice TIP in his presence. He concludes it MUST be genuine. I conclude that Johniam attends these meetings primed to hear something that will comfort his heart. I practice TIP with the heartfelt motive of saying something that will comfort the hearts of those present. AND THE RESULT SHOCKS YOU? Come on! I could fake it with the best of them. I know because I did.

Good question, Geisha! But you would have to measure an admitted faker to know that. My thought is, if I faked gibberish, I DON'T need to pre-think the actual sounds any more than an alleged tongues-speaker would. Example: If I INTENDED to say "Lo shanta kali fon senti porishi sunta kay ronta fello sonasta," then yes, you would pick up that I was repeating something I memorized because it would work the same as language and normal thinking. If, however, I did not pre-think anything and just spouted the first sound that came to mind, then no, it would be indistinguishable from what we saw with the tongues speakers. Laleo. They're speaking without regard to the sounds that are coming out of their mouths, in both cases. So I would expect the readings to be the same. Here's another experiment they could try: Record the brain activity of someone who admittedly is speaking platitudes they made up on the spot ("I am God, and I love you. I always have and always will. Be strong in my Word and have faith in Me always, and I will never forsake you"). Compare the brain activity of someone doing THAT with the brain activity of someone bringing forth a word of prophecy. Does anyone doubt what the outcome would be? Anyone? Interesting thing about that video: the notion that the believers involved produced a known language was NOT EVEN ALLEGED. No one claimed to be producing an identifiable language. This, of course, flies in the face of Acts, doesn't it? When they spoke in tongues, people around them said, "Hey! They're speaking my language!" So the guys and gals on that video, shucks, they must all be speaking heavenly languages. Which brings me back to, how many languages do they have in heaven? Do the angels under Michael's dominion speak Michaelese, while the angels under Gabriel's command speak Gabrielese? Are there more than two heavenly languages? How many? If this were the doctrinal thread, this is the part where I'd ask for chapters and verses. But it's not the doctrinal thread, so I won't go there. Then again, these people might be speaking archaic languages, once known to man but now lost to history. There's always that. ALL OF THEM? God gives us irrefutable proof that's indistinguishable from made up gibberish? (By the way, Johniam, that's how you spell "gibberish." In English, anyway. You're welcome). How is that irrefutable proof of anything?

Listened to and watched the report on the study of speaking in tongues, and the study appears to contain a fundamental, fatal flaw. The researcher compared the brain of someone speaking in tongues to the same person praying with the understanding. What's missing? The brain of someone deliberately faking it. I'd bet a week's salary it would be indistinguishable from a tongues speaker.

Yes, I'm exaggerating. I know most of you are not accusing me of bullying