Raf

Here's something I didn't think of until this morning. One side of this debate has claimed that they have, in a tangible and indisputable way, tapped into the power of Almighty God, creator of heaven and earth, He who could end my very existence with but a thought, He who parted the Red Sea, leveled the walls of Jericho, stopped the rotation of the earth so that the sun could stand still long enough for a battle to be won... He who raised the dead, raised His Son to eternal life, who is intent on establishing His Almighty and Everlasting kingdom on earth for all time! You have tapped into that awesome and infinite power! That's the side accusing ME of bullying. I want you to think about that.

Spanish version of pig Latin... Did that sumgun just pull the race card on me? Seriously?

I did the same thing you do, John. I babbled, trying to make it sound like a convincing language. Then I made up some platitude that sounded like what I thought God would say if He were in the room. You know darned well how I faked it, because you do it all the time.

Communal self delusion. We encouraged each other to keep up the lie. I don't think anyone who did it is bad. Our desire to love and be the best for God was exploited by a huckster and his power mad minions. If they thought TIP was really God speaking through us, they never would have abused so many in God's name. But hey, disagree with me. It's all good.

Cool. Peace out.

You guys DO know that the conclusion of the gospel of Mark is a forgery, right?

Questioning the very authorship of Acts? Take the red pill, Neo, but know that once you do, there's no going back...

A verse that was added to the original text, Bullinger's desperate attempt to vouch for it notwithstanding. Wierwille discarded verses he didn't like on MUCH flimsier evidence than that which discredits Mark 16:9ff

Geisha, and that is why some still find it so difficult to part with it. It's not just a sign of their faith. It IS their faith. Without it, they doubt everything. Keep it at the cost of their integrity. Lose it at the cost of God's Easier to make me the bad guy.

Once again: "All" can be disproven. You said so yourself.

Cross posting. I see what you're saying about proving God, but if "your" relationship with God is dependent on your keeping up an inner and outer deception, wouldn't a person of integrity want to get that kinda fixed a little?

No, I am not asking anyone to prove God. Please don't confuse the issue. I am not asking anyone to prove anything. I've been ordered by the God police (johniam) to prove my position. But that puts the burden on the wrong place. As has been noted, I can't be proved right, but I CAN rather easily be proved wrong. At some point, Steve, after enough experimentation, one would have to concede the likelihood that I am right. Not the certainty. Just the likelihood/probability.

Ah, now we've made a breakthrough of sorts, Steve. You see, I concede that it's impossible to prove me right. But it is possible to prove me wrong! So here I am, as politely as I can, accusing you of fooling yourself (lying, deceiving... Pick the word that offends you the least), and you can prove me wrong anytime you want. Are you willing to prove it? (And why are skeptics encouraging you while the SITters saying "don't do it"? I'm speculating, but do you doubt I'm correct? Doesn't it strike you as a teensy bit odd?)

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.