Apparently, I have failed to make myself clear. I am not addressing the practice of speaking in tongues per se. Nor am I addressing it's validity. What I am addressing is the doctrine of "SIT" that was built around it in Way theology. Clearly, it's not "spiritual mashed potatoes for the Christ in you" or "proof that you're going to heaven and all hell can't stop you." as was taught in the context of SIT. I propose that much of what we think we know about speaking in tongues is really just Way theology (ie:SIT)
Apparently, I have failed to make myself clear. I am not addressing the practice of speaking in tongues per se. Nor am I addressing it's validity. What I am addressing is the doctrine of "SIT" that was built around it in Way theology. Clearly, it's not "spiritual mashed potatoes for the Christ in you" or "proof that you're going to heaven and all hell can't stop you." as was taught in the context of SIT. I propose that much of what we think we know about speaking in tongues is really just Way theology (ie:SIT)
Okay color me completely .. okay only a little confused... can you confirm if I have an understanding of what you are saying
you are not talking about whether or not some one can or can not speak in tongues or if they are faking it or not but that how it is done and what we were taught about it in TWI was/is incorrect.. not to mention all the splinter groups out there.
and that how it was presented to us was erroneous from the get go... (how am i doing so far)
as in just because some one appears to be speaking in tongues doesn't mean they are.. and also doesn't prove or disprove their born again status. Only God and the person actually speaking in tongues know their spiritual status.. and since mankind tends to lie they may or may not be genuinely speaking in tongues.
Speaking in tongues with Interpretation may or may not be a correct usage of speaking in tongues.
in fact due to the large amount of misinformation in the way all types of operations of the spirit may be fake or being used incorrectly.
This is the extent of my meager understanding of the TWI doctrine...I think anyway but all the time now I am finding little residual TWI teachings popping up in my life that I am having to rethink and modify.
I know what I do is speaking in tongues but If I heard someone else doing it that would not necessarily mean that they were speaking in tongues.
Okay color me completely .. okay only a little confused... can you confirm if I have an understanding of what you are saying
you are not talking about whether or not some one can or can not speak in tongues or if they are faking it or not but that how it is done and what we were taught about it in TWI was/is incorrect.. not to mention all the splinter groups out there.
and that how it was presented to us was erroneous from the get go... (how am i doing so far)
Splendidly!
as in just because some one appears to be speaking in tongues doesn't mean they are.. and also doesn't prove or disprove their born again status. Only God and the person actually speaking in tongues know their spiritual status.. and since mankind tends to lie they may or may not be genuinely speaking in tongues.
Speaking in tongues with Interpretation may or may not be a correct usage of speaking in tongues.
in fact due to the large amount of misinformation in the way all types of operations of the spirit may be fake or being used incorrectly.
Bingo!
This is the extent of my meager understanding of the TWI doctrine...I think anyway but all the time now I am finding little residual TWI teachings popping up in my life that I am having to rethink and modify.
I know what I do is speaking in tongues but If I heard someone else doing it that would not necessarily mean that they were speaking in tongues.
How can we even know if this thing we call "speaking in tongues" is, indeed, the same thing being referred to in Acts and Cor.?----or if this admonition was directed solely toward a specific group at a specific space in time?
This whole concept of increasing your spiritual prowess in direct proportion to time spent practicing glossolalia (sessions 11 & 12) would appear to greatly diminish the importance of anything that may have been accomplished on the cross.
I know what I do is speaking in tongues but If I heard someone else doing it that would not necessarily mean that they were speaking in tongues.
I'm not trying to speak for Waysider, but I would contend that we have no way of knowing what we're doing when we "speak in tongues". I would be more apt to think that we're simply making noises that sorta sound like a language. At least, that's what those who've researched it (with probably a little more dispassionate eye than the believer/participants bring to bear) have come up with.
Personally I know that when I first "spoke in tongues", privately, at home after reading the first 5 chapters of RTHST, I was amazed at my "God-given" ability. But after giving it a little more thought, without the emotional charge or WayWorld viewpoint, I think it's highly likely that there's a much more mundane explanation without having to invoke any supernatural causality.
The sparse bit of scripture devoted to the practice is vague to the point of being meaningless. And what we think we "know" about it - I think - has much more to do with conjecture and wishful thinking than any sort of recorded doctrine.
Just think of all the stuff our brains can do without much conscious input. Like typing fer instance. Do you have to spend any time thinking about what letters you're going to press? Or does your brain simply take over that part for you? I know when I was an estimator for a construction company, I got to the point where I would simply know what the product of two 2 or 3 digit numbers was almost instantaneously, with no real conscious effort put into it. Would it really be all that difficult for our brains to conjure up some homecooked "language" on the spot? I wouldn't think so.
So in the final analysis, I think it's far more likely that SIT is simply a parlor trick that was used to convince us of the veracity of WayWorld dogma. And it worked surprisingly well in that respect...
I know when I was an estimator for a construction company, I got to the point where I would simply know what the product of two 2 or 3 digit numbers was almost instantaneously, with no real conscious effort put into it. Would it really be all that difficult for our brains to conjure up some homecooked "language" on the spot? I wouldn't think so.
Not that difficult for Dr Cyclops. He only had eight syllables in his jabber..."loshanta malaksito" Either that or his brain mighty mighty simple.
So in the final analysis, I think it's far more likely that SIT is simply a parlor trick that was used to convince us of the veracity of WayWorld dogma. And it worked surprisingly well in that respect...
I think you're right. One night after the cyclops had been turned down by yet another married woman and was drinking far too heavily he started mumbling. HA heard it and told him about it the next morning...and SIT was born... TWI version at least.
The below is word for word from the Nelson Bible Dictionary. The vocabulary is a little different calling it the "gift of tongues" instead of "speaking in tongues". However, vocabulary is not always important and is secondary at best. What is important is the spiritual reality and impact of speaking in tongues which this highly respected biblical commentary makes clear. Speaking in tongues is not only clearly stated and practiced in the New Testament, but is a genuine work of the Holy Spirit.
TONGUES, GIFT OF
The Spirit-given ability to speak in languages not known to the speaker or in an ecstatic language that could not normally be understood by the speaker or the hearers.
Apparently the only possibly direct reference in the Old Testament to speaking in another tongue or language is found in Isa 28:11 "For with stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people." This seems to be a reference to an invasion of the Assyrians. They apparently would speak in another language, one probably unknown to the people of Israel. The apostle Paul later applied this verse to speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:21). The apostle Peter considered the phenomenon of speaking in tongues that occurred on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (Joel 2:28-32).
In an appearance to His disciples after His resurrection, Jesus declared, "And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues" (Mark 16:17).
On the Day of Pentecost, the followers of Christ "were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4). The people assembled in Jerusalem for this feast came from various Roman provinces representing a variety of languages. They were astonished to hear the disciples speaking of God's works in their own languages. Some have suggested that the miracle was in the hearing rather than in the speaking. This explanation, however, would transfer the miraculous from the believing disciples to the multitude who may not have been believers.
Tongues as a gift of the Spirit is especially prominent in 1 Cor 12 and 14. In 1 Cor 12 the phenomenon of tongues is listed with other gifts of the Spirit under the term gifts. As one of the several gifts given to believers as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, tongues is intended, with the other gifts, to be exercised for the building up of the church and the mutual profit of its members. In 1 Cor 13 the apostle Paul puts the gift of tongues in perspective by affirming that though we "speak with the tongues of men and of angels" (v. 1), if we do not have love, the gift of tongues has no value.
In 1 Cor 14 Paul deals more specifically with the gift of tongues and its exercise in the church. In this chapter the tongue is not an intelligible language, for it cannot be understood by the listeners. Therefore, a parallel to the gift of tongues is the gift of interpretation. The gift of tongues was used as a means of worship, thanksgiving, and prayer. While exercising this gift, the individual addresses God not man; and the result is to edify himself and not the church (1 Cor 14:2,4). This gift is never intended for self-exaltation but for the praise and glorification of God. Paul does not prohibit speaking in tongues in a public service (14:39). But he seems to assign it to a lesser place than the gift of prophecy. Paul claims for himself the gift of tongues-speaking, but apparently he exercised this gift in private and not in public (14:18-19).
The gift of tongues is to be exercised with restraint and in an orderly way. The regulations for its public use are simple and straightforward. The person who speaks in an unknown tongue is to pray that he may interpret (1 Cor 14:13). Or, someone else is to interpret what he says. Only two or three persons are to speak, with each having an interpretation of what he says. Each is also to speak in turn. If these criteria are not met, they are to remain silent (1 Cor 14:27-28). The gifts of speaking in tongues and their interpretation are to be Spiritinspired. Paul also points out that tongues are a sign to unbelievers. If these guidelines are not observed, unbelievers who are present will conclude that the people of the church are out of their minds.
The phenomenon of speaking in tongues described in the New Testament is not some psychological arousal of human emotions that results in strange sounds. This is a genuine work of the Holy Spirit.
I'm not sure what else I could possibly say to stress that I am not interested in validating or invalidating anyone's personal experience with speaking in tongues. My point is simply this: When it comes to spiritual matters, Way doctrine has an extremely low level of credibility. Consider, for example, the Advanced Class teachings on devil spirits, discerning of spirits and the rest of the revelation and impartation manifestations. Think about how far out in la-la land some of that material is. Why, on Earth, should we assume then that the doctrines surrounding the subject of speaking in tongues are any more credible? Should we blindly accept everything that was presented in sessions 11 & 12 as if it is the end all answer to everything you ever wanted to know about speaking in tongues? I think that would be an unwise decision.
Uh oh, now Nelson's Bible Dictionary is given by inspiration of God too?
Sorry Mark, I don't find any more credibility in an "appeal to authority" line of reasoning either.
A phenomenon at least similar to what we know as SIT has been practiced by lots of folks in disparate cultures throughout history - and pre-dating the Biblical accounts by many centuries as well. Greek Oracles were said to do it, Western hemisphere aboriginal tribes did it, as well as those with occult leanings. Hell, I've seen Sid Ceasar and some other JEWISH comedians do something very similar in their comedy routines (maybe they were secretly "born again"? - only their rabbi knows fer sure).
And for all of that, just what is it that tongues really DO? In WayWorld we thought that God was getting ego-strokes with it, I guess. And we were fattening up our inner man (it DOES seem to have worked rather effectively at fattening up our OUTER man - well, for me anyway). And it was supposedly evidence that we were born again and heaven-bound. But if anybody can do it, is any of that really true?
Here's part of the SIT doctrine as presented in the Advanced Class.
"Speaking in tongues much daily is prerequisite to receiving revelation."
Has anyone ever stopped to consider the absurdity of this?
**********************************************
Or how about this from PLAF.
"You have to speak in tongues much so the Christ in you will be spiritually nurtured and grow big and strong."
Helloooo? You supposedly have this spirit inside you that is completely, completely complete, perfect in every way, but you have to water it and sprinkle on a steady diet of spirit food so it can get more "completer" and more "perfecter"?
*************************
These are examples of what I am talking about when I say SIT (Way doctrine regarding speaking in tongues/ glossolalia) is bogus.
"You have to speak in tongues much so the Christ in you will be spiritually nurtured and grow big and strong."
Right on Waysider.
I actually tried this one out while in twi to "prove" it, and I concluded this PLAF statement wasn't true...it never bore out with practicle application, and it didn't make sense scripturally, another one of those things that made me go, hmmm... at the time.
The phenomenon of speaking in tongues described in the New Testament is not some psychological arousal of human emotions that results in strange sounds. This is a genuine work of the Holy Spirit.
And I reserve the right to strenuously disagree with the above - with equal credibility, I can call it poppy cock, brainwashing, WayBrain and whatever else I choose to label the glossolalia, and move on. Your quoted sources? Human... Me? human... Tit for tat...
This is a genuine work of the Holy Spirit. This was a con art job of Dr Cyclops.
Dude and what is with the boldface? Does that mean the words are from on high as the spirit gives us utterance?
Dr Cyclops was a con job and a good one.
Just couldn't resist - the voices were talking to me again...
The problem Waysider is that you started this entire thread without biblical insight. You took a verse "tongues shall cease" out of context from where it is placed in the scriptures in 1 Corinthians chapter 13. First of all when you started this thread it really should have been started in the doctrinal forum where people who read the bible tend to gather. Next, you should have been more specific as to which TWI doctrines you did not agree with. Instead you made a blanket statement implying that none of what TWI taught was biblical regarding speaking in tongues. Sorry, but not even Adolph Hitler was wrong all the time. I am sure that TWI had some things they taught correctly and some things that they taught incorrectly. It is up to you, I and others to be more specific with the help of honest study to determine what that might be.
And George, what do you actually believe that is written in the bible? Do you believe any of it was inspired by God? Do you even believe there is a God? Do you even believe that a man named Jesus or a man named Paul at one time walked the face of the earth and taught people stuff?
1.I used the Way acronym, "SIT", to refer to "speaking in tongues as taught by The Way."
2.I have lived with someone for 26 years who admittedly faked, not only SIT, but TIP and Prophesy for over 2 years before leaving The Way. So, no, I don't base my assessment on the testimony that has been presented here by some others on GSC.
3. I, too, spoke in tongues before PFAL and it was an amazing and uplifting experience for me as well.
The basis of my "premise" is that SIT, or "speaking in tongues as taught in The Way", is bogus. As a quick reference, I offer sessions 11 & 12 of PFAL. On page 62 of the PFAL syllabus, Wierwille offers a list of "12 things that speaking in tongues is". That list is nothing more than a list of Wierwille's private interpretation (or the private interpretation of whomever may have inspired him.) with scriptures thrown in to give it some Biblical credibility. What Wierwille taught in PFAL is what is commonly called glossolalia. Glossolalia has been practiced since long before the "first century". It's also been practiced by non Christians.There have been many studies conducted on glossolali and, surprisingly, the effects of glossolali are not as damning as might be presumed. The application and exploitation of said practice, however, is a whole different matter. The SIT we were taught in PFAL was really nothing substantially different than the glossolali that has been practiced by Christians and non-Christians alike for thousands of years and predates Christ himself by thousands of years.To be so brazen as to say "it's proof in the senses realm that you're going to Heaven and all hell can't stop you" is a bogus, blatant and deplorable misrepresentation and application of scripture.
And George, what do you actually believe that is written in the bible? Do you believe any of it was inspired by God? Do you even believe there is a God? Do you even believe that a man named Jesus or a man named Paul at one time walked the face of the earth and taught people stuff?
sounds like you were actually surprised..
personally, I can't take too much issue with a fellow who has pretty much a working knowledge of Japanese, as a second language..
Sorry Mark, I don't find any more credibility in an "appeal to authority" line of reasoning either.
As much as I consider George a very likeable person, he sure does not know me very well and what I believe as far as Christianity is concerned. George, if you actually want to know what I believe about Christian authority then read this.
As much as I consider George a very likeable person, he sure does not know me very well and what I believe as far as Christianity is concerned. George, if you actually want to know what I believe about Christian authority then read this.
Mark I don't know you at all, but it sure looks more like you want folks to visit your site more than have a discussion.
Of all the points Geo made all you can do is invite him to look at what you've written? Why not address his posts directly and have a mature discussion?
Or else it just looks like an info-mercial for yet another splinter group. Your points seem awfully close to what we heard in twi.
As much as I consider George a very likeable person, he sure does not know me very well and what I believe as far as Christianity is concerned. George, if you actually want to know what I believe about Christian authority then read this.
I have it from a reliable source that George Aar is not likable but is indeed in league with the evil powers of Mector whose goal it is to destroy anything that takes itself too seriously
I have it from a reliable source that George Aar is not likable but is indeed in league with the evil powers of Mector whose goal it is to destroy anything that takes itself too seriously
O.K., that does it! I'm taking away your secret decoder ring, the Mector bylaws, AND your membership card. Man, you can't keep a secret fer chit!
Dooj, I do not have the time to read every single post on this thread. I just read it now however. It offered no specific information. It was to general in nature.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
12
7
18
Popular Days
Jun 22
26
Jun 21
25
Jun 16
16
Jun 17
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Mark Sanguinetti 13 posts
doojable 12 posts
RumRunner 7 posts
waysider 18 posts
Popular Days
Jun 22 2009
26 posts
Jun 21 2009
25 posts
Jun 16 2009
16 posts
Jun 17 2009
11 posts
Popular Posts
RumRunner
Just remember purgatory
RumRunner
And I reserve the right to strenuously disagree with the above - with equal credibility, I can call it poppy cock, brainwashing, WayBrain and whatever else I choose to label the glossolalia, and move
doojable
Mark - did you even read this post? And considering that this isn't the doctrinal forum, what's with railing on anyone who doesn't agree with your view of SIT? Chill out man....
Posted Images
waysider
Apparently, I have failed to make myself clear. I am not addressing the practice of speaking in tongues per se. Nor am I addressing it's validity. What I am addressing is the doctrine of "SIT" that was built around it in Way theology. Clearly, it's not "spiritual mashed potatoes for the Christ in you" or "proof that you're going to heaven and all hell can't stop you." as was taught in the context of SIT. I propose that much of what we think we know about speaking in tongues is really just Way theology (ie:SIT)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
Okay color me completely .. okay only a little confused... can you confirm if I have an understanding of what you are saying
you are not talking about whether or not some one can or can not speak in tongues or if they are faking it or not but that how it is done and what we were taught about it in TWI was/is incorrect.. not to mention all the splinter groups out there.
and that how it was presented to us was erroneous from the get go... (how am i doing so far)
as in just because some one appears to be speaking in tongues doesn't mean they are.. and also doesn't prove or disprove their born again status. Only God and the person actually speaking in tongues know their spiritual status.. and since mankind tends to lie they may or may not be genuinely speaking in tongues.
Speaking in tongues with Interpretation may or may not be a correct usage of speaking in tongues.
in fact due to the large amount of misinformation in the way all types of operations of the spirit may be fake or being used incorrectly.
This is the extent of my meager understanding of the TWI doctrine...I think anyway but all the time now I am finding little residual TWI teachings popping up in my life that I am having to rethink and modify.
I know what I do is speaking in tongues but If I heard someone else doing it that would not necessarily mean that they were speaking in tongues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
How can we even know if this thing we call "speaking in tongues" is, indeed, the same thing being referred to in Acts and Cor.?----or if this admonition was directed solely toward a specific group at a specific space in time?
This whole concept of increasing your spiritual prowess in direct proportion to time spent practicing glossolalia (sessions 11 & 12) would appear to greatly diminish the importance of anything that may have been accomplished on the cross.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I'm not trying to speak for Waysider, but I would contend that we have no way of knowing what we're doing when we "speak in tongues". I would be more apt to think that we're simply making noises that sorta sound like a language. At least, that's what those who've researched it (with probably a little more dispassionate eye than the believer/participants bring to bear) have come up with.
Personally I know that when I first "spoke in tongues", privately, at home after reading the first 5 chapters of RTHST, I was amazed at my "God-given" ability. But after giving it a little more thought, without the emotional charge or WayWorld viewpoint, I think it's highly likely that there's a much more mundane explanation without having to invoke any supernatural causality.
The sparse bit of scripture devoted to the practice is vague to the point of being meaningless. And what we think we "know" about it - I think - has much more to do with conjecture and wishful thinking than any sort of recorded doctrine.
Just think of all the stuff our brains can do without much conscious input. Like typing fer instance. Do you have to spend any time thinking about what letters you're going to press? Or does your brain simply take over that part for you? I know when I was an estimator for a construction company, I got to the point where I would simply know what the product of two 2 or 3 digit numbers was almost instantaneously, with no real conscious effort put into it. Would it really be all that difficult for our brains to conjure up some homecooked "language" on the spot? I wouldn't think so.
So in the final analysis, I think it's far more likely that SIT is simply a parlor trick that was used to convince us of the veracity of WayWorld dogma. And it worked surprisingly well in that respect...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Well said, George.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
The below is word for word from the Nelson Bible Dictionary. The vocabulary is a little different calling it the "gift of tongues" instead of "speaking in tongues". However, vocabulary is not always important and is secondary at best. What is important is the spiritual reality and impact of speaking in tongues which this highly respected biblical commentary makes clear. Speaking in tongues is not only clearly stated and practiced in the New Testament, but is a genuine work of the Holy Spirit.
TONGUES, GIFT OF
The Spirit-given ability to speak in languages not known to the speaker or in an ecstatic language that could not normally be understood by the speaker or the hearers.
Apparently the only possibly direct reference in the Old Testament to speaking in another tongue or language is found in Isa 28:11 "For with stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people." This seems to be a reference to an invasion of the Assyrians. They apparently would speak in another language, one probably unknown to the people of Israel. The apostle Paul later applied this verse to speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14:21). The apostle Peter considered the phenomenon of speaking in tongues that occurred on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy (Joel 2:28-32).
In an appearance to His disciples after His resurrection, Jesus declared, "And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues" (Mark 16:17).
On the Day of Pentecost, the followers of Christ "were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4). The people assembled in Jerusalem for this feast came from various Roman provinces representing a variety of languages. They were astonished to hear the disciples speaking of God's works in their own languages. Some have suggested that the miracle was in the hearing rather than in the speaking. This explanation, however, would transfer the miraculous from the believing disciples to the multitude who may not have been believers.
Tongues as a gift of the Spirit is especially prominent in 1 Cor 12 and 14. In 1 Cor 12 the phenomenon of tongues is listed with other gifts of the Spirit under the term gifts. As one of the several gifts given to believers as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, tongues is intended, with the other gifts, to be exercised for the building up of the church and the mutual profit of its members. In 1 Cor 13 the apostle Paul puts the gift of tongues in perspective by affirming that though we "speak with the tongues of men and of angels" (v. 1), if we do not have love, the gift of tongues has no value.
In 1 Cor 14 Paul deals more specifically with the gift of tongues and its exercise in the church. In this chapter the tongue is not an intelligible language, for it cannot be understood by the listeners. Therefore, a parallel to the gift of tongues is the gift of interpretation. The gift of tongues was used as a means of worship, thanksgiving, and prayer. While exercising this gift, the individual addresses God not man; and the result is to edify himself and not the church (1 Cor 14:2,4). This gift is never intended for self-exaltation but for the praise and glorification of God. Paul does not prohibit speaking in tongues in a public service (14:39). But he seems to assign it to a lesser place than the gift of prophecy. Paul claims for himself the gift of tongues-speaking, but apparently he exercised this gift in private and not in public (14:18-19).
The gift of tongues is to be exercised with restraint and in an orderly way. The regulations for its public use are simple and straightforward. The person who speaks in an unknown tongue is to pray that he may interpret (1 Cor 14:13). Or, someone else is to interpret what he says. Only two or three persons are to speak, with each having an interpretation of what he says. Each is also to speak in turn. If these criteria are not met, they are to remain silent (1 Cor 14:27-28). The gifts of speaking in tongues and their interpretation are to be Spiritinspired. Paul also points out that tongues are a sign to unbelievers. If these guidelines are not observed, unbelievers who are present will conclude that the people of the church are out of their minds.
The phenomenon of speaking in tongues described in the New Testament is not some psychological arousal of human emotions that results in strange sounds. This is a genuine work of the Holy Spirit.
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright ©1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm not sure what else I could possibly say to stress that I am not interested in validating or invalidating anyone's personal experience with speaking in tongues. My point is simply this: When it comes to spiritual matters, Way doctrine has an extremely low level of credibility. Consider, for example, the Advanced Class teachings on devil spirits, discerning of spirits and the rest of the revelation and impartation manifestations. Think about how far out in la-la land some of that material is. Why, on Earth, should we assume then that the doctrines surrounding the subject of speaking in tongues are any more credible? Should we blindly accept everything that was presented in sessions 11 & 12 as if it is the end all answer to everything you ever wanted to know about speaking in tongues? I think that would be an unwise decision.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Uh oh, now Nelson's Bible Dictionary is given by inspiration of God too?
Sorry Mark, I don't find any more credibility in an "appeal to authority" line of reasoning either.
A phenomenon at least similar to what we know as SIT has been practiced by lots of folks in disparate cultures throughout history - and pre-dating the Biblical accounts by many centuries as well. Greek Oracles were said to do it, Western hemisphere aboriginal tribes did it, as well as those with occult leanings. Hell, I've seen Sid Ceasar and some other JEWISH comedians do something very similar in their comedy routines (maybe they were secretly "born again"? - only their rabbi knows fer sure).
And for all of that, just what is it that tongues really DO? In WayWorld we thought that God was getting ego-strokes with it, I guess. And we were fattening up our inner man (it DOES seem to have worked rather effectively at fattening up our OUTER man - well, for me anyway). And it was supposedly evidence that we were born again and heaven-bound. But if anybody can do it, is any of that really true?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Here's part of the SIT doctrine as presented in the Advanced Class.
"Speaking in tongues much daily is prerequisite to receiving revelation."
Has anyone ever stopped to consider the absurdity of this?
**********************************************
Or how about this from PLAF.
"You have to speak in tongues much so the Christ in you will be spiritually nurtured and grow big and strong."
Helloooo? You supposedly have this spirit inside you that is completely, completely complete, perfect in every way, but you have to water it and sprinkle on a steady diet of spirit food so it can get more "completer" and more "perfecter"?
*************************
These are examples of what I am talking about when I say SIT (Way doctrine regarding speaking in tongues/ glossolalia) is bogus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
Right on Waysider.
I actually tried this one out while in twi to "prove" it, and I concluded this PLAF statement wasn't true...it never bore out with practicle application, and it didn't make sense scripturally, another one of those things that made me go, hmmm... at the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
And I reserve the right to strenuously disagree with the above - with equal credibility, I can call it poppy cock, brainwashing, WayBrain and whatever else I choose to label the glossolalia, and move on. Your quoted sources? Human... Me? human... Tit for tat...
This is a genuine work of the Holy Spirit. This was a con art job of Dr Cyclops.
Dude and what is with the boldface? Does that mean the words are from on high as the spirit gives us utterance?
Dr Cyclops was a con job and a good one.
Just couldn't resist - the voices were talking to me again...
Edited by RumRunnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
The problem Waysider is that you started this entire thread without biblical insight. You took a verse "tongues shall cease" out of context from where it is placed in the scriptures in 1 Corinthians chapter 13. First of all when you started this thread it really should have been started in the doctrinal forum where people who read the bible tend to gather. Next, you should have been more specific as to which TWI doctrines you did not agree with. Instead you made a blanket statement implying that none of what TWI taught was biblical regarding speaking in tongues. Sorry, but not even Adolph Hitler was wrong all the time. I am sure that TWI had some things they taught correctly and some things that they taught incorrectly. It is up to you, I and others to be more specific with the help of honest study to determine what that might be.
And George, what do you actually believe that is written in the bible? Do you believe any of it was inspired by God? Do you even believe there is a God? Do you even believe that a man named Jesus or a man named Paul at one time walked the face of the earth and taught people stuff?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Mark - did you even read this post?
And considering that this isn't the doctrinal forum, what's with railing on anyone who doesn't agree with your view of SIT?
Chill out man....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
sounds like you were actually surprised..
personally, I can't take too much issue with a fellow who has pretty much a working knowledge of Japanese, as a second language..
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
He can speak in *real* tongues..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
No matter what you think of Geo.. I regard him as one of the most "spiritual" people I've ever met..
and we probably disagree on almost everything..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
As much as I consider George a very likeable person, he sure does not know me very well and what I believe as far as Christianity is concerned. George, if you actually want to know what I believe about Christian authority then read this.
http://www.christianherald.info/lordship-of-jesus-christ-page-1.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Mark I don't know you at all, but it sure looks more like you want folks to visit your site more than have a discussion.
Of all the points Geo made all you can do is invite him to look at what you've written? Why not address his posts directly and have a mature discussion?
Or else it just looks like an info-mercial for yet another splinter group. Your points seem awfully close to what we heard in twi.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
I have it from a reliable source that George Aar is not likable but is indeed in league with the evil powers of Mector whose goal it is to destroy anything that takes itself too seriously
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Oh wait!
I saw a poster that proved that what twi taught about SIT is accurate.
It must be real if someone painted it...right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
O.K., that does it! I'm taking away your secret decoder ring, the Mector bylaws, AND your membership card. Man, you can't keep a secret fer chit!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Just remember purgatory
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Dooj, I do not have the time to read every single post on this thread. I just read it now however. It offered no specific information. It was to general in nature.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.