SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[skyrider]

And why am I batting for the wrong team again? Because I don't buy into TWI's mass delusion that we are manifesting at our will the power of the Almighty by babbling incoherently and then spitting out some lame and yes practiced, indoctrinated, perfunctory, or coerced ....supposed exhortation. Talk about deluded.

Like so many topics.....this one, too, brings back loads of why-did-I-stay-so-long memories.

I remember back in the 70's......when, after the intermediate class, the 'bold ones' would keep prompting some of us to

".....have a believer's meeting and HEAR FROM GOD."

And, silently I would say to myself......."Really? Isn't that what the sriptures emphatically do?"

Uuuuugh.

[waysider]

With all the high tech devices and accompanying jargon being used today, I wonder what S.O.W.E.R.S say when they want to have a believers meeting.

Probably something like "OMG! Let's hook up and have a BM!"

[Raf]

Vote in the poll!

[Raf]

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.

[Steve Lortz]

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!

Even if you were to inventory EVERY experience of tongues and conclude that each one is fake, it still cannot prove that ALL experiences of tongues are fake because the very next one COULD be genuine. This is not a matter of evidence restricted to tongues. It is a matter of evidence for everything, from the matter of the sun coming up each day to discovery of the Higgs bosun.

With all the high tech devices and accompanying jargon being used today, I wonder what S.O.W.E.R.S say when they want to have a believers meeting.

Probably something like "OMG! Let's hook up and have a BM!"

I don't have to hook up somewhere to have a bowel movement, except of course to plumbing... unless I'm on L.E.A.D.!!!

Love,

Steve

Edited September 16, 2012 by Steve Lortz

[waysider]

One time, I was at the shopping mall and believing for a parking spot on the outer edges of the lot. As I approached the edge of the lot, I began speaking in tongues "like a house afire". BOOM! Just like that, there were bunches and bunches of empty spots at the very edge of the lot. Now, THAT'S what I call abundance...and all because I believed and spoke in tongues.

Edited September 16, 2012 by waysider

[Steve Lortz]

One time, I was at the shopping mall and believing for a parking spot on the outer edges of the lot. As I approached the edge of the lot, I began speaking in tongues "like a house afire". BOOM! Just like that, there were bunches and bunches of empty spots at the very edge of the lot. Now, THAT'S what I call abundance...and all because I believed and spoke in tongues.

My daughter calls that "corn starch" parking, as an indirect reference to perks of the adult entertainment industry! You know, I'm finding this thread VERY cathartic!

Love,

Steve

[Raf]

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?)

Edited September 16, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

I've been following the thread, but personally feel that at least for myself, trying to "prove" God and/or my relationship with God or aspects of it to another person is a futile endeavor. IMO "proving" God is each individual's burden to do for themselves and their own life.

I do have one more contribution to the thread though. The "Great Principle" - i.e. God being restricted from communicating to anything besides "spirit". That doesn't even make it past Balaam's @$$ in the Old Testament. And I doubt it's something that Balaam's @$$ would see the logic in.

Edited September 16, 2012 by chockfull

[waysider]

Choc

I don't think anyone is trying to prove or disprove God or question anyone's belief in God. What's been called into question here specifically is the "utterance manifestations".

The Great Principle?? Wierwille copied that thing lock, stock and barrel from another source. I documented the original usage of it a couple of years ago but have no idea what thread it was on.

[chockfull]

Choc

I don't think anyone is trying to prove or disprove God or question anyone's belief in God. What's been called into question here specifically is the "utterance manifestations".

Well to me and at least with some scriptural support, all the "utterance manifestations" (I do not accept that TWI term as accurate) are kind of part of my prayer life. So while "proving" that stuff may not be trying to prove or disprove God or a belief in God directly, it IS trying to prove or disprove an aspect of my personal relationship with God.

Do you get my meaning?

[Raf]

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.

[Raf]

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?

[Steve Lortz]

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.

It's not a matter of experimentation. It's a matter of research design. You do very well until you include the word "ALL". "ALL" can neither be proven nor disproven.

When you talk about probabilities, as "...one would have to concede the likelihood that I am right. Not the certainty..." then I certainly (?) have to agree with you, especially as our world-view is being changed from deterministic to probablistic by quantum mechanics (and by Dungeons & Dragons). (By the way, I think Ecclesiastes 9:11 indicates that the Biblical world-view was probablistic also.) I think there is a strong possibility that many, if not most, of the people who first spoke in tongues during session 12 of PFAL were faking it, not just during session 12, but throughout their time involved with TWI. I think Wierwille was faking it. It does not follow from that observation that EVERY person who spoke in tongues for the first time during session 12 of PFAL was faking it. Nor does it follow that EVERY person who speaks in tongues, even outside the influence of TWI is faking it, nor that Peter or Paul were faking it, what, nearly 2,000 years before Wierwille?

I Corinthian 14:22 states that tongues can be a "sign" for some people, but the biblical idea of a "sign" is a vastly different thing from the post-Enlightenment idea of "proof". (I'm gonna hafta put that in my paper somewhere, too )

I approve of what you're doing with this thread, Raf! You are stirring us to think critically, and now I always approve of that!

Love,

Steve

Edited September 16, 2012 by Steve Lortz

[Raf]

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

[Steve Lortz]

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

Thanks, Raf! I was being sloppy. "All is" can be easily disproven. "All is not" cannot be proved.

I gotta drive a friend with a broken arm down to Indianapolis for surgery tomorrow, and I have to do some homework tonight to make up for the drive time tomorrow, so I have to bid you all a fond "Aloha nui oi!" for now! (no, that was not tongues!)

Love,

Steve

Edited September 16, 2012 by Steve Lortz

[excathedra]

i'm not so sure i like Freud either

anyway, since i've been reading this thread, i've been speaking in tongues to see if i could gather any useful info.

[geisha779]

Like so many topics.....this one, too, brings back loads of why-did-I-stay-so-long memories.

I remember back in the 70's......when, after the intermediate class, the 'bold ones' would keep prompting some of us to

".....have a believer's meeting and HEAR FROM GOD."

And, silently I would say to myself......."Really? Isn't that what the sriptures emphatically do?"

Uuuuugh.

I do have to wonder .... how I missed the most obvious of things like. . . . we were seeking after signs, paying money for the power of the HS, and coveting this particular gift as my due or right......maybe, by not reading what is clearly written as correction and just adopting it as doctrine. We didn't just have a little error....VP full on mangled those sections of scripture. It was gross error.

And.....if someone needs tongues as proof of the new birth.....they are really displaying the opposite of genuine faith.

It was a sign so we could know that we know....well, if we needed that sign to really know.... then we never really truly placed our faith in Him. Our faith was in that so-called proof.

Really diabolical.

[excathedra]

i'm not sure i like the interpretation and prophecy stuff

speaking in tongues so far i like

[Raf]

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.

[skyrider]

I do have to wonder .... how I missed the most obvious of things like. . . . we were seeking after signs, paying money for the power of the HS, and coveting this particular gift as my due or right......maybe, by not reading what is clearly written as correction and just adopting it as doctrine. We didn't just have a little error....VP full on mangled those sections of scripture. It was gross error.

And.....if someone needs tongues as proof of the new birth.....they are really displaying the opposite of genuine faith.

It was a sign so we could know that we know....well, if we needed that sign to really know.... then we never really truly placed our faith in Him. Our faith was in that so-called proof.

Really diabolical.

Remember......this verse was thrown in the mix as well.

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

[waysider]

Remember......this verse was thrown in the mix as well.

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Yes, that one was used in session #12 to "prove" that speaking in tongues is a sign to unbelievers. Later (intermediate?) it was used to suggest that if no unbelievers were present, prophesy should trump TIP. How any of this was supposed to improve anyone's quality of life is still a mystery to me. Ironic, don't you think, in a class that promotes itself as being able to deliver power for abundant living.

[Raf]

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

[Raf]

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

[chockfull]

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?

I don't agree with your premise that I am deceiving myself or others. I have prayed via the spirit / i.e. in tongues well before I ever heard of TWI. And participated in prayer meetings where there was interpretation. In a mainstream denominational Christian church. And with small groups of Christian friends dating back to high school.

So while yes, I concede that many did make things up in that respect within TWI, I don't agree with your blanket statements that it is deception across the board. Like so many other things, God looks on the heart and is able to protect and save even within the bowels of Satan's plans.