SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[chockfull]

Here is how a burden of proof fallacy works:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

1.Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.

2.Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

Wow. That sounds like this thread. Raf started the thread. He made a claim that everyone is faking SIT. Now with the rules of logic, making that claim would place the burden of proof on Raf to substantiate the claim. He tries, but is unable to. Side B here (at least represented by me) is saying "well, you really can't make a scientific definitive claim like X as there's no way to prove it one way or another".

So by the logical fallacy reference you have there, basically you are saying that Raf has the burden to prove SIT is fake since he made the original claim, and it's a logical fallacy for him to say that the burden of proof lies on Side B to prove it's not fake.

Did I get that right?

Edited October 13, 2012 by chockfull

[OldSkool]

I don't think God ever asked us to have faith that what we called speaking in tongues is genuine.

He also doesn't ask us to call it all fake either. :unsure:

[Raf]

I'll let that one slide, chockfull. (this was intended as a reply to an earlier post, not the closest one)

Seriously, if the promise of God is that doing A will result in B, and you claim to do A but do not produce B, I don't see where your faith, rather than mine, obligates me to believe you're really doing A.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

1.Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.

2.Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

Wow. That sounds like this thread. Raf started the thread. He made a claim that everyone is faking SIT. Now with the rules of logic, making that claim would place the burden of proof on Raf to substantiate the claim. He tries, but is unable to. Side B here (at least represented by me) is saying "well, you really can't make a scientific definitive claim like X as there's no way to prove it one way or another".

So by the logical fallacy reference you have there, basically you are saying that Raf has the burden to prove SIT is fake, and it's a logical fallacy for him to say that the burden of proof lies on Side B to prove it's not fake.

Did I get that right?

Yes and no.

The argument has changed nature and focus over the course of this thread.

The current burden of proof being examined at this point in the discussion is the veracity of speaking in tongues.

1. It can be shown that speaking in tongues is not a "language".

2. It cannot be shown that speaking in tongues is a "language".

Can we agree on that much?

Edited October 13, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

No, chockfull, your analysis of the logical fallacy is incorrect and quite selective.

[Raf]

Thanks for giving me time to explain:

First, we cannot presume that the argument behind this conversation begins with this thread. Rather, it begins with the assertion both inside and outside TWI that SIT is real in the first place.

If I were to start a thread that said "There is no Santa Claus," your reply would not be "prove it." It would probably be more along the lines of "who said there was?

You cannot turn invisible by shutting your eyes. Who said I could?

You cannot fly (unaided by technology). Who said I could?

You cannot speak perfect prayer and praise in a human language unknown to you. Wait a minute, yes I can.

See, this conversation does not start with a denial: no, you can't. It starts with an assertion: Guess what I can do!

So if we're going to talk about where the burden of proof lies, we have to start with the primary assertion being made. THe primary assertion being made is "I can speak in tongues, just like the Bible says I can."

Prove it.

"I can't prove it because you wouldn't recognize the language."

Let's gather a team of linguists who would recognize whether it IS a language at all, and quite possibly which language.

"Well, I speak in tongues of angels."

ALL of you speak in tongues of angels?

"Well, who said it should be a recognizable language anyway?"

The Bible. Acts, Corinthians: Tongues means languages. It does not mean code. If it meant code, God would have called it speaking in code. He called it speaking in tongues.

***

You can see how we can continue on this line without a resolution forever, until someone says "you just have to take it on faith" or some other argument-ender that resolves nothing.

In my view, the burden of proof remains with those who claim they CAN speak in tongues -- that is, an actual language spoken by some race of humans on earth somewhere or sometime. I've even said I'll accept Tolkienian Elvish, if the speaker can demonstrate he's never read Tolkien nor seen the movies.

***

Only after this point do we even start to approach what's being spoken on this thread. Four of the poll options presented are, effectively, thesis statements that are subject to scrutiny and review:

The notion that this works the way TWI says it does.

The notion that this works the way CES says it does.

The notion that this works the way Pentecostals say it does.

The notion that it's all a bunch of hooey.

That final notion, the one I assert, cannot be proven correct without an impossibly large sample size (100 percent of tongues speakers) and without the cooperation of God, whose participation is not guaranteed. Implicit in adopting this position is the recognition that it cannot be proved with any sense of finality. That's why the burden of proof argument "Raf hasn't proved his case" rings impossibly hollow. Raf shouldn't have to prove his case. Raf is not the one making the claim. Raf is DENYING the claim, and the person who MADE the claim IN THE FIRST PLACE still has the burden to prove it.

In the sense that my position is an extreme one (there is no proof, therefore it never happens), I understand the application of a logical fallacy. After all, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because we can't point to enough evidence of God to satisfy the skeptic does not mean there is no God. However, the absence of evidence that there is no bogeyman under my bed is evidence that there is, in fact, no bogeyman under my bed. In other words, the absence of evidence is an indication that what you're looking for isn't there. It's just not final, definitive proof.

I can't finally, definitively prove my position is true. I can only show, as I think I have, that all concrete, testable, falsifiable evidence leans entirely in one direction.

(I know, there are linguistic qualities to glossolalia. But those qualities are also present in non-religious free vocalization, so we are forced to agree that the appearance of linguistic qualities in glossolalia prove nothing more than human ingenuity. I therefore repeat: ALL the independently tested evidence leans in one direction).

But I have not proved my point, and I can't unless I study every case of SIT, past and present, and secure the cooperation of God.

So, you see, the burden of proof never shifted from tongues speakers to skeptics. It is still on you to prove this is a human language. In my view, nothing short will suffice.

You may say that I'm being stubborn by insisting that it be a human language. I contend that is what the Bible clearly indicates tongues should be. Any deviation from that, in my opinion, is an attempt to explain why the modern practice is not producing Biblical results.

[Raf]

Something crucial to understand here: One reason I cannot prove my position is that the counterposition has made my position impossible to prove.

You will accept nothing but a 100 percent sample size, which is of course impossible.

Even if I were to get a 100 percent sample size and show that not one person is producing a verifiable language, you have the escape hatch of God's non-cooperation.

In other words, even if I proved my case, you would be able to say I have not proved my case.

I think that robs you of the ability to draw any conclusions based on my inability to prove my case.

On the contrary, you can prove your case with relative ease by producing a language, and I think I am able to draw conclusions from your inability not only to do it yourself, but to find someone who can.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Raf

[geisha779]

And one more time - if God intended it to be proven He would have designed it such. However, there are many things in which He requires a non-scientific leap of faith. The new birth, for example.

That is exactly what He designed it for. . . . as a sign to unbelievers. I am chuckling because that is pretty outrageous Chockfull. It wasn't for the people speaking, but for the hearers who heard their language spoken. Of course, you are entitled to think whatever you will....I really am not trying to challenge your prayer life or faith in any way, but I would love it if you would just consider the thread of continuity of tongues we find in the differing accounts in Acts.

Yeah, God did design it as a sign. It was a known language or the point was kind of moot without someone there to interpret.

Just saying. Not trying to rabble rouse, but your assertion struck me as funny. Not laughing at you.....just at the irony. Peace okay? No fights? It is just an observation.

---------------------------------------

oops!

I should really finish reading before I post....I guess you have all touched on this a bit. I really do see Raf's point, especially concerning what scripture describes vs what we produced in TWI. For me, I just don't see a way around it.

Edited October 13, 2012 by geisha779

[waysider]

I think there was always a part of me that was hoping I was speaking the refined language of an ethereal being instead of the typical ramblings of a babushka sporting stada baba at Yasha's Butcher Shop.

"Yea, my little ones, look neither to the kishka nor kielbasa but keep your eyes steadfastly on the pierogi."

Edited October 14, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

The problem with the burden of proof fallacy in terms of this thread is manifold.

First, the fallacy does not establish that one side is right and the other wrong. It's more like the agreed upon terms of the discussion.

In most logical, rational discussions, it is a rule of thumb that the person making the affirmative claim (which is to say, the person saying something exists or is possible or can be done or is being done) has the burden of proving the claim. It is not incumbent on the opposing side to disprove the claim.

One popular writer put it this way. If you told me there was a dragon in your garage, the burden would be on you to prove to me that it was there. If you told me it was an invisible dragon that floated so it left no footprints, breathed a heatless, harmless invisible fire, and that it was non-corporeal so that splashing it with water or paint would not reveal its presence or exact location, then you have presented me with a dragon that is indistinguishable, practically speaking, from something that isn't there. I may not have proved that you have no dragon, but I am nonetheless confident in my belief that your dragon is a figment of your imagination. You have done nothing to persuade me you have a dragon.

The problem with THIS thread is, we can't get agreement on who's claiming to have a dragon. Is it you, who claim to bring forth in a human language you've never learned or a secret language known only to Almighty God and His Heavenly Host a message of prayer, praise, edification, exhortation an comfort? Or is it I, the one saying, nah, sorry, what you're doing is actually a very human thing that some call free vocalization.

I believe the greater claim is being made by the tongues speaker, and that the burden of proof lies on that person to prove what he is producing is genuine and producing Biblical results (a human language. That's what the Bible describes. Anything less is apologetic backtracking).

You may believe the greater claim is being made by me, with some gall challenging something clearly described in the Bible as something God wants us to do and assures us we can do to this day. As such, you believe the burden is on me to prove you are faking it (and that everyone who claims to be speaking in tongues is faking it).

But then you establish the terms of the argument in such a way that you will not accept my point until/unless I prove it, but at the same time, you preempt any tools I may use to prove that point. This is why I think you, and not I, are the one claiming to have a dragon. You can speak in tongues, but then you define and redefine SIT in such a way to make it indistinguishable from faking it, and expect me, as a matter of faith, to accept your experience based solely on your faith.

You are not, incidentally, even open to the distinct possibility that your interpretation of the scriptures regarding SIT might, in fact, be wrong, which would explain EVERYTHING.

That's not confidence. That's rationalization. The Bible says A produces B. You say you're doing A, but you're not producing B. Something's not right here. So you redefine B. Maybe it's not a language, per se. Maybe it's tongues of angels. Fine for one person, I say. Fine for MANY, in fact. But not fine for the majority or all. It is inconsistent with the clear teaching of the Bible: these were supposed to be human languages. Secret, yes, but only because YOU didn't know the language, not because no one on earth did. Maybe it's not a language at all. Maybe it's enough to say it has language-ish qualities. Fine, if that's what you want to believe, but first, it's not what the Bible teaches. Second, it's indistinguishable from someone faking it on purpose. Any Bozo with a working mouth can engage in free vocalization and produce exactly what you produce when you SIT. Tell me again why I should believe in your invisible dragon ability to speak in tongues?

At the point where you are compelled to concede that there is no distinguishing what is produced by tongues from what is produced by fakery, I am no longer compelled to take your claim of tongues seriously. Poythress, who still allowed for the possibility that God is at work in glossolalia, nonetheless makes that monumental concession in his study, which was theological and not scientific in nature. He and I part ways at that point. Maybe it is God, still, he suggests. Maybe. But I would expect God to do better than that. And let's be honest: so would you. If SIT had been sold to you as indistinguishable, linguistically, from fakery, you never would have bought it.

Honestly, I can't imagine why anyone would think I'm making the greater claim. I'm not invoking the power that created the universe as an energizing force in my prayer life. But as you wish. I can argue with your reasoning, but not your right to employ it.

Now, am I wrong that SIT should produce a human language? I'm open to that possibility, but honestly, I would be shocked. It seems to me that you have to torture plain language in order to reach that conclusion, when the more obvious answer is that tongues in the Bible were, without exception, known languages (known to someone on earth, not necessarily the speaker).

Anyway, I'm babbling and I'm out of beer, which is a crime.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

By the way, I do recognize a certain fallacy in my argument related to burden of proof.

It is incorrect to say there is no evidence of A, therefore A is not true.

A might be true, but the evidence irretrievable or not yet retrieved. I am open to that. After all, I keep saying, my side IS the one that can be disproved. This is on practical terms, unrelated to the normal logical terms of who should have the burden of proof.

Take the example I used earlier:

There is no evidence that the bogeyman is under my bed. Therefore, the bogeyman is not under my bed. That's enough to convince me. Every parent hopes it's enough to convince their child. I'll bet it's enough to convince you.

Now try this: There is no evidence there is life on other planets. Therefore, there is no life on other planets.

Hold the phone: that's not necessarily so. There is no evidence of life on other planets for a variety of reasons, but we cannot say with any degree of certainty that there is no life on other planets.

It is far better to say: I have no reason to believe there is life on other planets based on the available evidence thus far, but I am open to future evidence persuading me otherwise.

Maybe I should cast the SIT discussion in the same manner.

I have no reason to believe anyone in the modern church is producing Biblical results and therefore truly engaging in the genuine Biblical practice of speaking in tongues, but I am open to future evidence persuading me otherwise. In fact, I dare you to produce it!

Ooh, wine...

[chockfull]

In most logical, rational discussions, it is a rule of thumb that the person making the affirmative claim (which is to say, the person saying something exists or is possible or can be done or is being done) has the burden of proving the claim. It is not incumbent on the opposing side to disprove the claim.

Look, I didn't bring up the logical fallacy argument. I just went to the definition website waysider provided, and applied the logic there describing the fallacy.

Here it is one more time:

1.Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.

2.Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

Now let's look at facts in evidence. Claim X is presented by side A. Raf claims that "Claim X" is "Look I can SIT, and it's a real language", and that he's just refuting that. Unfortunately, nowhere in evidence here do we see such a claim. Raf started this thread. He created the poll. The poll reinforced by Raf made the claim. Nobody came on Greasespot forums to try and flaunt SIT or make any kind of claims about it. Claim X from the position of this thread is that "everyone SIT is faking it". There is no amount of twisting of facts that eludes this logic. Raf made that claim, he has posted it numerous times on the thread, and answers almost every poster on the thread in that fashion, at times even stating his opinion on it as fact.

No Raf, before I looked at the logical fallacy definition, I didn't think this. But there, everything I read about it is how you are behaving on this thread. Claim X - "everyone SIT is faking it". You say the burden of proof is on the people SIT to prove it. Side B. Side B says "they are not faking it - you can't prove that they are".

In a logical fallacy claim you have to look at where the claim is made first. In this thread, it was made first by you.

Edited October 14, 2012 by chockfull

[chockfull]

At the point where you are compelled to concede that there is no distinguishing what is produced by tongues from what is produced by fakery, I am no longer compelled to take your claim of tongues seriously. Poythress, who still allowed for the possibility that God is at work in glossolalia, nonetheless makes that monumental concession in his study, which was theological and not scientific in nature. He and I part ways at that point. Maybe it is God, still, he suggests. Maybe. But I would expect God to do better than that. And let's be honest: so would you. If SIT had been sold to you as indistinguishable, linguistically, from fakery, you never would have bought it.

Indistinguishable how? By scientific tools? Science can't even really measure the difference between a live body and a dead body. It can't measure spirit. Spiritual gifts or manifestations by nature begin with spirit, which again can't be measured by science. If science can't measure it, how can I take it's conclusions regarding the topic seriously? That would be like asking me how long a gallon of water is. Oh, you can't measure volume of water with a ruler? Well, then, it must be that the water is fake, right?

[chockfull]

That is exactly what He designed it for. . . . as a sign to unbelievers. I am chuckling because that is pretty outrageous Chockfull. It wasn't for the people speaking, but for the hearers who heard their language spoken.

I just love it when people present their opinions and interpretation of scripture as absolute fact. In spite of insurmountable evidence of people SIT in the Bible where the hearers did NOT understand the language spoken.

Of course, you are entitled to think whatever you will....

I think that maybe what you ought to do is actually study what the Bible does say about it, in detail. You seem to be missing a lot.

[chockfull]

Yes and no.

The argument has changed nature and focus over the course of this thread.

The current burden of proof being examined at this point in the discussion is the veracity of speaking in tongues.

1. It can be shown that speaking in tongues is not a "language".

2. It cannot be shown that speaking in tongues is a "language".

Can we agree on that much?

This is more what I would label the "Hail Mary" fallacy. It's where someone takes the view "who cares" what evidence, scriptures, or points of logic occurred, I'll take my opinion, put a couple of numbers around it, then throw it up as a "hail Mary" pass and ask if we can agree on this much.

waysider, who knows, maybe you'll get some replacement refs that will score that for you, and you can win the game....

1. It can't be shown that SIT is not a "language". There are some clips of people speaking gibberish that display no elements of a language. But no overall conclusions.

2. It was observed that many speakers in a study showed natural elements of language when doing "their thing". But since nobody in the scientific studies understood the language, it wasn't proven. Interestingly enough, we have at least one first party account of a meeting where a member on this thread heard SIT, and people in the room understood it in their native language. Thus in that sense we have "proof". Firsthand testimony is allowed in a court of law as proof. But nobody could question all those people to verify, so it's not definitive.

[chockfull]

I have no reason to believe anyone in the modern church is producing Biblical results and therefore truly engaging in the genuine Biblical practice of speaking in tongues, but I am open to future evidence persuading me otherwise. In fact, I dare you to produce it!

Someone did. They provided an account where someone SIT, and others in the audience understood the content and the language. That's proof that the person didn't know the language, and that the people hearing it understood it as a real language. This was a firsthand eyewitness account. It would be acceptable in a court of law.

So unless you can reasonably convince everyone that the person is lying about it, or some other explanation, then it's done.

You still don't want to believe it.

[waysider]

"It was observed that many speakers in a study showed natural elements of language when doing 'their thing'. But since nobody in the scientific studies understood the language, it wasn't proven."

.........................................................

Ahhh, another stumbling block...It's not a "language". It has some elements of language, such as words that may be genuine in and of themselves, delivery that at times sounds very convincing, but, no language structure, per se. And that, Bible or no Bible, seems to be the crux of the issue. No amount of cognitive dissonance is going to change that.

The "first hand testimony"? Yes, I heard my fair share of those during my time in the Way. There was never any verification of authenticity. I classify that more along the lines of urban legend. And, you know, the reason urban legends are so believable is because the people repeating them believe they're repeating something that's true.

Edited October 14, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

It's pretty clear that no matter how much I explain the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, some people will take two lines from an internet article to score a point on a thread and ignore everything else in that article and others to continue to shift the burden of proof while accusing the other side of doing so.

I'm not the one claiming to perform the amazing stunt. You are. Prove it.

No amount of linguistic legerdemain changes that simple fact.

[Raf]

I do not accept decades old anecdotal evidence that someone else whose integrity I know nothing about and who has since vanished into history claims to have understood what was spoken in a tongue. The anecdotal evidence for UFO abduction is at least as persuasive and many times more widespread.

you're damn right I don't accept that as proof.

The spectacular claim that this happened is just as subject to the burden of proof as the larger claim it seeks to prove. It is not mine to disprove.

Oh, and knowing a thing or two about courts of law, let me correct your misstatement: these accounts would be tossed as hearsay. Look it up. It might be admitted to indicate that the claim was made, but it would not be admitted to establish the truth of the matter. The witness who spoke in tongues cannot be produced, the witnesses who heard the tongue cannot be produced, and if this thread has proved anything, it has proved that lying about it was widespread.

No offense, skyrider.

Edited October 14, 2012 by Raf

[skyrider]

No offense, skyrider.

How did I get in the middle of this?

[Raf]

Was I mistaken? Maybe I meant Socks. No offense to whoever it was what told the story.

[Raf]

In the short course of this thread, we have erred on who told the story and what language was spoken. What else can go wrong in the telling over 40 years. But I'm supposed to accept the proof.

[Raf]

Indistinguishable how? By scientific tools? Science can't even really measure the difference between a live body and a dead body. It can't measure spirit. Spiritual gifts or manifestations by nature begin with spirit, which again can't be measured by science. If science can't measure it, how can I take it's conclusions regarding the topic seriously? That would be like asking me how long a gallon of water is. Oh, you can't measure volume of water with a ruler? Well, then, it must be that the water is fake, right?

Science can very easily measure the difference between a live body and a dead body. If it's breathing, it's live. If there's activity in the brain, it's live.

Linguistics CAN measure whether something spoken is a language (your protestations not withstanding, SIT has been repeatedly shown not to be a language, to the point that when the brain waves were studied, the notion that it is really a language isn't even alleged anymore.

[geisha779]

I just love it when people present their opinions and interpretation of scripture as absolute fact. In spite of insurmountable evidence of people SIT in the Bible where the hearers did NOT understand the language spoken.

I think that maybe what you ought to do is actually study what the Bible does say about it, in detail. You seem to be missing a lot.

This is my last post on the matter or the thread. Challenge someone's perspective and boy it gets ugly. Yet, all I read on other threads is how great it is to have critical thinking skills now and gee it is great to be able to question. It is so hypocritical it is laughable.

I guess even considering that there actually IS continuity throughout Acts concerning speaking in tongues is right out the window. You just dismissed a very accepted and widely understood exegesis as "my interpretation" as if that explained it away. A caviler dismissal of the obvious in favor of a perspective that supports your cherished understanding is no way to look at the scriptures, but it is a really common exegetical fallacy.

You bite so easily. But, maybe you are wrong. There really are compelling reasons to believe that people did hear and understand what was being said in the other accounts besides Pentecost. If you would just lose that edge maybe we could look at some of them and nicely consider for a minute.

I believe exactly what I said....those other accounts reveal those hearing did understand what was being said. I think we have to read into it to see otherwise.

Language is for communication, obviously your dismissal of me as uninformed was trying to communicate something to me. I will pretend I didn't understand and you were just SIT.

I know the Pentecostal definition for speaking in tongues.....I once believed it. Speaking to God mysterious utterances in a secret and private prayer language. Got it. I just don't think scripture supports it. And yes, I actually had to look at scripture to see this.

If you want to believe that when tongues is used in scripture it is used to convey some mysterious and special prayer language....go ahead. Is that what is means? Then that must be exactly how the Greeks would have understood that phrase SIT. Right? We might have to ignore the Septuagint where it is used for regular human languages....but whatever.Why should its first use or where it is used in Job, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah. Esther, or Nehemiah matter to us?

Although the accounts we do have were not some private prayer examples, but rather public testimony.....it shouldn't bother us. A biblical testimony is in there to ignore. The first account, which establishes it as a known human language, doesn't have to mean anything if we won't let it mean something. Unless of course, we are meant to lean on that for understanding in the subsequent accounts, then we have a problem. There were 14 different groups identified on Pentecost as hearing and understanding their specific dialect. Hard to ignore.

Now, we have to make a leap if we are going to assume that SIT is anything other than a known human language. We have to start reading into Paul's intent in Corinthians....we must ignore hyperbole, tone, and correction. To assume Paul is advocating the private use of tongues, we would have to ignore his criticism elsewhere, really throughout the entire letter. The majority of what he writes in 1 Corinthians is negative because tongues is a problematic and pride filled gift. Yet, we are to assume he is suddenly advocating its private use after painstakingly explaining the negative connotations concerning self gratification? I don't think so, not unless he is manic.

We also have to ignore Peter's visit to the gentiles. With Cornelius they were heard to be exalting God in tongues. Someone there understood what was being said or they wouldn't have known they were exalting God. Lucky guess? Assumption? Luke uses the same expression as Acts 2 where they were speaking known languages. If it was different, we are not clued in by Luke's choice of language. Language is for communication. Peter's defense of that mission also tells us . . . . they had received the Holy Spirit just as the Apostles had. He goes on to explain more.....As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. . . . . . So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God's way.

Color me uniformed on details, but it seems to me that Luke and Peter are going out of there way to draw parallels between the two events, not distance. It seems to me, one would have to ignore the obvious and blatant continuity to favor anything remotely like a one time event where the languages spoken and understood are a rare phenomenon. Silly me, I take these accounts into the reading of 1 Corinthians and amazingly my perspective allows for tone, hyperbole, and correction. New eyes to see those verses in Corinthians. That can't possibly be the reason they are in there can it?

The Holy Spirit means empowerment.....for what purpose? Who or what is the focus on? Basic questions and details that must be considered when reading about gifts. Are we built up through the body or as a lone ranger? Are gifts distributed for the individual or are they for the edification of the body and then we in turn are edified by the whole? Is the empowerment of the Holy Spirit for empowerment to minister to others or some mystical way to build ourselves up? If it wasn't a known language and a sign for those who didn't believe and the purpose is self, private and merely some mysterious utterances......then we can throw out the rest of scripture and ignore all the wonderful things we should understand about one body, diversity within unity, and even what it means to pray.

Edited October 14, 2012 by geisha779

[Raf]

If what you produce is indistinguishable from fakery, the burden is on you to find the distinction.