Raf

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

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.