SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[waysider]

I believe that it is impossible to "prove" the existence of God. I can decide whether or not to believe it. I think it's the same way for speaking in tongues. I don't think it can be proven that SIT is real. Likewise, I don't think it can be proven that SIT is fake.

I'm with you on the first part. I have to disagree with you on this:

"I don't think it can be proven that SIT is fake."

It can and has been proven that SIT (as defined within the parameters of Way Theology) is "fake".

Scientific studies have demonstrated that, when one is engaged in glossolalia, measurable, physiological changes take place in the portions of the brain associated with speech and critical thinking. These changes are temporary and cause no damage, in and of themselves. But, think about it. Why would God need to alter physiological processes to facilitate a spirit-to-spirit discourse? What happened to The Great Principle (ie: spirit can only talk to spirit)? What about free will? If you're not the one freely controlling it, someone else must be, making free will a moot point.

ergo>>>>>>It's fake.

Edited September 14, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

Remember, the words of interpretation and prophecy are inspiration, not revelation. Revelation is a direct message from God; inspiration comes from within yourself. If I had a bad day, I might be inspired to speak about hope or healing. If I had a great day, then perhaps about how God is faithful and just. You DO make it up on the spot. It just takes the spirit of God for someone to consistently minister grace to each different configuration of hearers in a godly way. If you thought it up hours earlier and memorized it you might fool people or luck out SOME of the time, but it wouldn't feel right. No exhortation, edification, or comfort. It would be hollow.

He tells me to prove it, then gives me the ammo I need to prove it.

First, let's clarify our terms: when I say "make it up on the spot," that is a DENIAL of any spiritual influence. Please do not now take that expression and turn it into an explanation for how the manifestation works, because it confuses the whole issue. "God inspires the message" and "I made it up on the spot" are two diametrically opposed propositions. What you have done is defined the former in such a way as to make it indistinguishable from the latter (which, I believe, proves my point, whether you see it that way or not).

Further, in acknowledging that someone making it up on the spot (my definition) could have the desired effect of exhorting and comforting the audience, you have effectively refuted the experience of exhortation and comfort as proof that what you heard was a divinely inspired message (as opposed to the speaker "lucking out").

In other words, just because you heard what you needed to hear, that does not prove that what you heard was not "made up on the spot" (my definition) by the speaker.

In fact, I contend that it is EASY to make up a message that exhorts and comforts the listeners in the room for the simple reason that the listeners in the room are primed for it. They WANT to hear something that exhorts and comforts them, so the platitudes we regurgitated on a regular basis were BOUND to have the desired effect because that is what we wanted to SAY and that is what we were hungry to HEAR.

You know what we never heard? Lotto numbers. The location of a lost set of keys. Hell, tomorrow's weather. We never heard ANYTHING that could not be summed up in a Roma Downey speech at the end of a Touched by an Angel episode.

In any event, I'm not asking you to prove that your experience is really divinely inspired. [in my opinion, you are kidding yourself and are perfectly free to continue doing so]. What I AM saying is that for those of you who are tired of lying about this for so many years and are afraid to admit it, it's OK to come out. No one's going to be mad. It's really quite liberating.

One more thing: I keep using the words lying, lies and liars. I apologize for that, because it implies dishonesty and I don't think very many people are being dishonest about this. Rather, I think you lied to yourselves, internalized that lie to the extent that you really believe it AND have invested a great deal of your faith in its veracity, and now can hardly imagine renouncing that lie because doing so calls into question your very relationship with God. I get it. It took me years to finally admit this, for that very reason. So again I say to you, come clean. Remember, God already knows all this stuff, doesn't He? He knows your heart. He knows what you did and why. So you're not kidding Him.

And if your relationship with God IS dependent on you keeping up this lie... how much of a relationship is that, really?

Of course, my message there is addressed only to those who lied about it. Those who told the truth should continue to do so.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

By the way, I never said anything about thinking this up hours ahead of time, or even minutes. It IS possible to make things up on the spot without rehearsing it. Most casual conversation works that way, but we'd be hard pressed to say most casual conversation is therefore divinely inspired.

[waysider]

I see these old guys (older than me! :o ) on the evening news, talking about how they were swindled out of their life savings. It must be embarrassing. So, why do they do it? I don't know. Maybe it gives them a feeling of reprieve to acknowledge it's the swindler who has done something wrong, not them.

[TrustAndObey]

By the way, I never said anything about thinking this up hours ahead of time, or even minutes. It IS possible to make things up on the spot without rehearsing it. Most casual conversation works that way, but we'd be hard pressed to say most casual conversation is therefore divinely inspired.

Just to be clearer.. Realizing "NOW" that the word "inspired" has more meanings than I originally thought.. When I say i spoke inspired utterances.. Inspired by God.. Divinely inspired, etc, etc, etc... I am speaking of just being inspired as a painter is inspired by nature, or a musician is inspired by hearing a lick.. I in the same manner was inspired by God, not given revelation or given the words to speak, they were words made up in my brain, with my thoughts, which is always inspired by what our Creator has done.

[Raf]

A thought addressed to Steve:

You said you believe Wierwille faked it, yet you have no reason to believe certain close family members are faking it.

I consider those two statements inconsistent if those family members were instructed (directly or indirectly) by Wierwille's method. Can a faker lead someone to a genuine experience?

I believe Wierwille faked it and taught others how to fake it. He did so by instructing people how to babble without thinking, then immediately suppressing their valid doubt that what they were doing was bogus. Remember in the class, how he IMMEDIATELY said the devil was trying to talk us out of what we were doing? That wasn't the devil. That was our conscience and integrity.

The moment you uttered the first syllable, you lied.

Here's the key: Wierwille exploited and encouraged that lie by validating you. That's easy to accept. I'm saying you lied. That's not easy to accept. It has the feel of a personal attack, and you (a good person) are not going to lie about something so important, special and holy. So you accept Wierwille (a ghost on a TV screen) and reject your own conscience and integrity because Wierwille is connecting you to the Almighty, while I am calling you a liar. I can see why it would be SO difficult to make the confession to yourself or to anyone else.

The above is my opinion. Only you know with any certainty whether I am correct.

[chockfull]

And if your relationship with God IS dependent on you keeping up this lie... how much of a relationship is that, really?

Of course, my message there is addressed only to those who lied about it. Those who told the truth should continue to do so.

It's not really a relationship at all if you're lying about it. If I felt in any way that was the case in my life I would cease doing it immediately and that practice would never cross my lips again. And I don't think God would have one iota of a problem with that.

But at some point you have to consider the teachings and practices of others in mainstream Christianity as much as you do the teachings and practices of Wierwille. Personally, I see enough of the charlatan in VP's recounting his experience in the tongues part as I do in his gas pump snowstorm vision. But in his story I don't doubt that he went to an Oral Roberts seminar. I don't doubt that Oral led other people into those gifts. I've known a number of people blessed and edified by Oral's ministry (not saying he was without blemish or problems). I know denominational churches that embrace the gifts in their prayer meetings.

Even if my viewpoint is different from yours, I do really appreciate what you are doing in this thread. Removing the leaven of VP the charlatan from our Christianity is a noble endeavor.

[skyrider]

In my opinion......this whole discussion would be better served by taking the focus off "lied about it"

and submit to being deceived and deceiving others.

This topic surfaces every few years.....especially regarding the intermediate class coaching and coercion

of 'tongues with interpretation.' Heck, even wierwille didn't want to update and tackle this project, but rather

passed this responsibility onto Earl Bvrton. Too contrived. Too rehearsed. Yet, to inspire 'unbelievers'....huh?

The masses followed wierwille as a teacher.......and yet, all of the questions that still linger.

2Ti 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

[waysider]

Remember how we were never, ever supposed to speak in tongues just to demonstrate to someone?

"Hey, Fred,Check this out..... Lo Shanta La ....."

Nope ..never supposed to do it in any way shape or form that hadn't been authorized by official Way doctrine.

What was that about? What was supposed to happen if we did?

[Raf]

Skyrider, "being deceived and deceiving others..."

Hey, if that's the language that makes you most comfortable, go for it. As long as we all agree that the "deceiving others" part was not done with malice or ill will. I don't think anyone intended to fake anything or to lie to friends and loved ones. It was crucial that we lie to ourselves first. Everything that proceeded from that lie was therefore consistent.

Personally, I don't see a substantive difference between variations of the word "lie" and variations of the word "deceive." Whichever works for you. I just think it needs to be real clear that no one's accusing anyone else of deliberate or malicious motives.

Chockfull, I find it remarkably easy to dismiss the doctrine and practice of Oral Roberts, who saw a 900-foot Jesus who told him to build a health center that would combine medicine and faith healing, only to watch that center go bankrupt resulting in God holding Roberts for an $8 million ransom that, while sufficient to save Roberts, was insufficient to save the health center. I have NO QUALMS WHATSOEVER about rejecting anything he says on the subject of how God works in man.

[chockfull]

Chockfull, I find it remarkably easy to dismiss the doctrine and practice of Oral Roberts, who saw a 900-foot Jesus who told him to build a health center that would combine medicine and faith healing, only to watch that center go bankrupt resulting in God holding Roberts for an $8 million ransom that, while sufficient to save Roberts, was insufficient to save the health center. I have NO QUALMS WHATSOEVER about rejecting anything he says on the subject of how God works in man.

Fair enough. He had problems. My POV centers on seeing some of his programs instituted in local denominational churches and seeing the results. To be fair the timeframe of this was before the fiasco you describe above.

[waysider]

The best lie you can tell is always the one you believe yourself.

[Raf]

Here's the thing: I'm not seeking to "prove" the experience is a farce for everyone who claims it. I've come to that conclusion, but I recognize that in doing so I am being less than polite to a lot of sincere people. But I'm not trying to prove it. I just needed to come clean and I invite others to do so.

In fairness, though, I shouldn't have to prove other people are lying. If you're the one claiming that you have spoken in a language you never learned, it should be your burden to prove you have done so. And spare me the "tongues of angels" line that dodges the question of which language you're speaking: that should only work for one person, tops (unless angels have more than one language, which you have to concede is both speculative and more than a little silly. Then again, the whole notion of "tongues of angels" is a little silly, isn't it. I suspect Paul was using a bit of hyperbole there).

And no, Corinthians does not qualify as proof that YOU spoke in tongues. I know the Bible says believers CAN do it. The issue is whether you have done it and are continuing to do it. So if you WERE to set out to prove you spoke in tongues, you'd kinda need to put your Bible down and put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. IF I were to ask you to prove it, to really prove it, I suspect you and I all know how that would turn out.

But I'm not asking people to prove anything.

I'm asking the people who WERE dishonest about this to admit it to themselves and, if they so choose, to everyone else.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

Here's a (rhetorical) thought.

If SIT/TIP/Prophesy is as important as we've been led to believe, why is there so little information about it in the scriptures?

[Twinky]

What happened to The Great Principle (ie: spirit can only talk to spirit)?

Waysider, you mean you believed - that?

I doubt there's a shred of anything to support that (really!) and in any case, why would God so limit himself?

Only an arrogant human being would think such a thing. God has more than one way of "speaking" and it's often not with words at all.

[Steve Lortz]

...That's just your opinion. You act like just because you did it disingenuously then so did everybody else and God has nothing to do with any of it. Prove it!

Can't be done, John, one way or the other...

[excathedra]

i stopped reading a while back because i got bored, but i don't think we should fight over this at all - who cares? the only thing i care about is that the HOPE OF CHRIST'S RETURN IS REAL -- please let it be :)

One of the things I'm going to have to do is demonstrate the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the role of spirit set forth in a Stoic interpretation of I Corinthians 8:6. I've already blown one prof's mind with that one!

that's interesting, but i'll probably get bored about that too ;)

[Steve Lortz]

"I don't think it can be proven that SIT is fake."

It can and has been proven that SIT (as defined within the parameters of Way Theology) is "fake".

Scientific studies have demonstrated that, when one is engaged in glossolalia, measurable, physiological changes take place in the portions of the brain associated with speech and critical thinking. These changes are temporary and cause no damage, in and of themselves. But, think about it. Why would God need to alter physiological processes to facilitate a spirit-to-spirit discourse? What happened to The Great Principle (ie: spirit can only talk to spirit)? What about free will? If you're not the one freely controlling it, someone else must be, making free will a moot point.

ergo>>>>>>It's fake.

I'm not doubting what you are reporting, waysider. It would help me if you could give me some specific references to the studies so I can consider their impact on my thesis.

When you add the caveat "as defined within the parameters of Way Theology" I can agree with you. The premise that "spirit can communicate only with spirit" is preposterous (do you realize that "preposterous" literally means "bass-ackward"!). However, I don't believe Paul or the first century Christian writers were dualistic Platonists, but rather more materialist Stoics. The Stoics did have a conception of spirit that CAN be squared with things written in the New Testament much more closely than the things written by the Alexandrian apologists in the 2nd century... OR by Wierwille in the 20th!

Differences between the Platonic and the Stoic conceptions of spirit will play an important part in my thesis, and I DO believe that human thought life (spiritual or otherwise) is mediated through electro-chemical actions in the physical brain.

i stopped reading a while back because i got bored, but i don't think we should fight over this at all - who cares? the only thing i care about is that the HOPE OF CHRIST'S RETURN IS REAL -- please let it be :)

that's interesting, but i'll probably get bored about that too ;)

If I could present it in person, you wouldn't be bored! I do it with a pinwheel, a balloon and a rubber band!

Love,

Steve

Edited September 14, 2012 by Steve Lortz

[excathedra]

I DO believe that human thought life (spiritual or otherwise) is mediated through electro-chemical actions in the physical brain.

that makes sense to me. i hope when you get into it, it's not over my electro-chemical actions in my brain

you were writing when i was, steve :)

If I could present it in person, you wouldn't be bored! I do it with a pinwheel, a balloon and a rubber band!

i'm going to call you dr. steve oz

love,

e

[Steve Lortz]

that makes sense to me. i hope when you get into it, it's not over my electro-chemical actions in my brain

By no means! I developed this stuff to teach to 7th graders!

Love,

Steve

(and I have been diligently taking my meds!)

Edited September 14, 2012 by Steve Lortz

[waysider]

"It would help me if you could give me some specific references to the studies so I can consider their impact on my thesis."

Here ya go, Steve.

This is the most often cited study but, there are many other academic pieces on the subject, as well.

HERE

[Raf]

Can't be done, John, one way or the other...

On the contrary, Steve, it can most certainly be proved to be genuine. It's impossible to prove or disprove prophecy. But tongues and interpretation can most certainly be proved beyond any hint of doubt.

So why hasn't it?

Edited September 14, 2012 by Raf

[Steve Lortz]

"It would help me if you could give me some specific references to the studies so I can consider their impact on my thesis."

Here ya go, Steve.

This is the most often cited study but, there are many other academic pieces on the subject, as well.

HERE

Thanks, waysider! I'm gonna print that out, and use it as a reference point for further research. You've saved me from a lot of blind combing through databases!

Love,

Steve

Edited September 14, 2012 by Steve Lortz

[Steve Lortz]

On the contrary, Steve, it can most certainly be proved to be genuine. It's impossible to prove or disprove prophecy. But tongues and interpretation can most certainly be proved beyond any hint of doubt.

So why hasn't it?

What methodoloogy do you propose? How do you define "proof"? What are your presuppositions? These are all questions I'm going to have to address regarding my own thesis arguments, if I expect it to pass.

Some of my relatives took PFAL. Others began speaking in tongues spontaneously when they were children, as members of congregations that didn't even acknowledge SIT, pro or con. My brother did it spontaneously as an adult, long before he ever took PFAL. He told me his story, and I believe him for reasons too lengthy, personal and convoluted to go into here. Others first spoke in tongues as members of Pentecostal congregations who regarded TWI as the vilest of cults. And that's just the relatives. The greatest desire of one of my sister's heart is to "praise the name of God with a song, and ... magnify him with thanksgiving" as per Psalm 69:30, but because of the lies she's been deliberately taught about SIT (that you gotta be possessed by a demon to do it), she doesn't even consider that those things are explicitly related to whatever Luke and Paul meant by "speaking in tongues".

As one of my friends would put it, I am not a turnip that just fell off the truck.

Love,

Steve

[Ham]

how god works in man..

I'm *seriously* thinking of doing some kind of seminar with respect to tomatoes.

No kidding..

Nature tends to give us way, way too much (at least it seems at the moment) than we know what to do with..

so to love the Tomato, is to preserve the tomato.

commercial outfits figured this out, long ago.