SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[waysider]

I think a lot of us, myself included, just assumed that Wierwille had some kind of inside track on understanding this stuff. He didn't. What he taught and promoted was nothing more than a hodge-podge of things he stole from other authors, sometimes whole chapters at a time.

A special thanks goes out to John Juedes for THIS comparative look at RTHST.

[Allan]

well golly gee, me wonders what language Cornelius and his household spoke for Peter (an unlearned man) to know that they were glorifying God ?! wordwolf says multiple accounts of tongues being understood, you say "common for them not to be recognized" wordwolf wants me to analyse the reason for this ? o.k.....some people understood and others didn't and others yet again had interpretation

[waysider]

Let's take a look at the credibility of the man who taught us about the manifestations.

HERE

[Raf]

Who said you're doing what Cornelius and his household did? They spoke languages. You don't. They did something you're not doing. They didn't fake it. You are faking it. I have no reason to believe the counterfeit you practice produces the same result as the Biblical genuine.

Again, I have to ask, if you don't care what I think of what you (pretend to) do, why do you care so much about what I think of what you (pretend to) do? The people who don't care.... don't care. You clearly do.

The only thing you can do by quoting the Bible is establish that the Bible makes a claim. So what? We already knew that. You haven't established that what you do is Biblical SIT, which ALWAYS produced human languages. Until you establish you're producing languages, anyone is justified in suspending belief in your claim.

I'm just calling your bluff. What you do is indistinguishable from faking it and produces the same result as faking it. So what's the evidence that you're doing anything beyond faking it? BIble verses aren't evidence. They are the claim. What you're doing is not Biblical. If it were, it would produce Biblical results. If t h e results you produce are Biblical results, then you're speaking in languages. Fantastic. Identify the language. Pass go. Collect $1 million.

You won't. You can't. Because you're faking it. You won't even try to identify the language, not because you don't want to tempt God. That's an excuse. You won't even try to identify the language because you know full well that I'm right and you're faking it.

I'm wrong? Prove it.

Or shut up.

[WordWolf]

well golly gee, me wonders what language Cornelius and his household spoke for Peter (an unlearned man) to know that they were glorifying God ?

For someone who's traveled for a bit, you're thinking too provincially.

When in heavily-traveled regions, it's common to know more than one language.

Acts 2 showed Jews from a number of countries, with many of them speaking multiple languages.

It wasn't peculiar to speak a second language. It would have been peculiar to speak a DOZEN

language. Even the unschooled, in many places, learn more than 1 language.

We know the witnesses who traveled with Peter would have been unusually hard to convince,

since their entire paradigm was about to shift in front of their eyes.

We know they knew what was being said, because they knew what was happening and knew this

was no ecstatic trance of gibberish, which was not uncommon at the time. They knew it was

a language AND what was said. Given how common trade and travel was in that place and

time, that doesn't narrow the language down entirely, but it wasn't the expected language(s)

for Cornelius and company in any instance. We know it proved things to those present

beyond a reasonable doubt for them. We were not told the exact language, so that's it.

That wasn't hard to follow just from reading it.

Acts 10 (NASB):44-46.

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God.

[WordWolf]

(snip)

wordwolf says multiple accounts of tongues being understood, you say "common for them not to be recognized" wordwolf wants me to analyse the reason for this ? o.k.....some people understood and others didn't and others yet again had interpretation :rolleyes:/>

I noticed you went out of your way not to quote what we actually said.

It's a LOT easier to pretend we said something else that way.

Here's what I asked:

Raf answered you on this already.

I am curious, however, if the question ever occurred to you in all the decades since you first

took pfal.

After all, in Acts, we had MULTIPLE accounts of Speaking in Languages where the observers understood

the languages. In I Corinthians, we SUPPOSEDLY had an explanation that the observers would

NEVER understand the languages.

So, how did you resolve the "apparent Bible contradiction" before this thread?

Did it even occur to you, before now, that there was one?

Here's what Raf said. It's clear you trimmed what he said enough that it lost the actual

meaning of what he said.

To clarify, there is nothing in I Corinthians to support the notion that SIT will result in something undetectable as a language. The Bible is clear in every instance of SIT that a language is produced. While it was common for no one to understand the language uttered (hence the need for interpretation) nothing in the verses indicate that God works supernaturally to have speakers produce utterances that will defy human attempts to verify that languages are, in fact, being produced. It is not something Paul would have anticipated or addressed. Frankly, it's an excuse for why linguistics never picks up a language.

Want to talk about K.I.S.S.? Ok, let's.

The simple reason linguistics never picks up a language is that languages are not being produced. No supernatural explanation required. Simple, stupid. Occam's Razor 1, Apologetic Excuse Making 0.

I noticed that you ducked my question completely by answering a different question,

then PRETENDING you answered MY question.

You said that I Corinthians says that Speaking in Languages produced results where observers would

NEVER recognize the languages.

(You're using that as a justification for why YOU never produce one, nor does anyone you know.)

At the same time, it's rather clear that Acts accounts have people understanding what was spoken.

So, it CAN'T EVER be understood, but some people understand it just fine?

That's a contradiction- so, I asked if you'd EVER noticed that was a contradiction,

and how you resolved it before approaching this thread.

So, how did you address the SUPPOSED position that Speaking in Languages should NEVER

be understood (your claim of I Corinthians) with the accounts of people understanding in Acts?

"some people understood and others didn't and others yet again had interpretation "

That answer should inspire some eye-rolling, actually.

[WordWolf]

Bumped up for those who wanted to re-discuss this.

[Raf]

I'll take "Threads that no one wants to see resurrected" for $2,000, Alex.

[chockfull]

WW - why - do you need to discuss it more?

My take is it doesn't matter - even if I was faking it I believe God would be big enough to hear me and understand and know what I'm praying about. And humor me in my practices because He knows what I've been through.

My beliefs haven't changed just my perspective. I'm sure I have a lot more things in my life other than that one that God has to humor that are of more consequence.

I haven't run into the TWI practice of the on-command interp and prophecy in Christianity outside of TWI. "Joey SIT and interpret, please." I don't practice that anymore and don't seem to miss or need the rote practice to stroke the ego.

Prayer suffices. Building up brothers and sisters with intent is better.

[waysider]

"Building up brothers and sisters with intent is better."

Exactly. Christian, Non-Christian, this thing, that thing or the other thing. Isn't that what makes this world a little more bearable place to live in? Treat people with respect and equality to the best of your ability. That can be quite a task in itself sometimes. It's a lesson that was sorely missing from the teachings I was exposed to in The Way.

[TLC]

WW - why - do you need to discuss it more?

My take is it doesn't matter - even if I was faking it I believe God would be big enough to hear me and understand and know what I'm praying about. And humor me in my practices because He knows what I've been through.

My beliefs haven't changed just my perspective. I'm sure I have a lot more things in my life other than that one that God has to humor that are of more consequence.

I haven't run into the TWI practice of the on-command interp and prophecy in Christianity outside of TWI. "Joey SIT and interpret, please." I don't practice that anymore and don't seem to miss or need the rote practice to stroke the ego.

Prayer suffices. Building up brothers and sisters with intent is better.

I don't really disagree with your point. However, there has been a very concerted effort by a number of people here at GSC to intellectually erase or eradicate any value in it.

Edited February 7, 2016 by TLC

[Bolshevik]

SIT keeps your mind void of productive thought, critical thinking, or anything not having to do with Victor Paul Wierwille and his Ministry. Kind of prepares you for RETEMORIES. Get that Word in your mind.

Interpretation of Tonuges helps a person to work through the embarrassment and shame of foolish, destructive behavior. Helps one to go witnessing. Walk up to others and speak the Word of Victor Paul Wierwille, even if it makes absolutely no sense to your own mind.

Prophecy gives it all some umphff. Forget the hesitation. BUILD UP MORE FOLLOWERS WHO WILL ALSO GO WITNESS. Show some enthusiasm (from the Greek, in Theos, meaning "in the oss"). Each one win one.

Confession - I confess, I don't know.

[waysider]

I don't really disagree with your point. However, there has been a very concerted effort by a number of people here at GSC to intellectually erase or eradicate any value in it.

Erase or eradicate any value to it? I believe that's pushing the issue a bit too far. People may very well perceive value in it. I know many do. I have no desire to erase or eradicate that for them. What's being done here is to question its validity not its value.

"Show some enthusiasm (from the Greek, in Theos, meaning "in the oss")."

Lord have mercy! You owe me a keyboard. (This one wasn't spew proof.)

[Allan]

Oh, I think the 'debate' is even simpler to define. Perhaps it boils down to whether one still believes in God and whether one believes in His Word. After all, if one can prove the fallibility of the bible, one can dismiss what we think we know of God and even get to the point of debunking Him altogether. Some choose this path, others stay off it. Either way, the individuals decision does not make for a neutral debate no matter how hard we try :blink:

[Bolshevik]

Oh, I think the 'debate' is even simpler to define. Perhaps it boils down to whether one still believes in God and whether one believes in His Word. After all, if one can prove the fallibility of the bible, one can dismiss what we think we know of God and even get to the point of debunking Him altogether. Some choose this path, others stay off it. Either way, the individuals decision does not make for a neutral debate no matter how hard we try :blink:/>

I disagree. This is not a doctrinal or biblical website. (At least I'm not here for the purpose of arguing for or against that matter of The Bible).

It's about VPW's motives and his affects on others. And that involves Victor Paul Wierwille's interpretation of it and how he used it.

VPW used The Bible. He could have also used the Quran. The Talmud. The Silmarillion. Or any holy book.

[waysider]

Oh, I think the 'debate' is even simpler to define. Perhaps it boils down to whether one still believes in God and whether one believes in His Word. After all, if one can prove the fallibility of the bible, one can dismiss what we think we know of God and even get to the point of debunking Him altogether. Some choose this path, others stay off it. Either way, the individuals decision does not make for a neutral debate no matter how hard we try :blink:/>

I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. Lots and lots of people who believe in God and believe in His Word don't believe in speaking in tongues. The two are not inextricably connected.

[Steve Lortz]

I disagree. This is not a doctrinal or biblical website. (At least I'm not here for the purpose of arguing for or against that matter of The Bible).

It's about VPW's motives and his affects on others. And that involves Victor Paul Wierwille's interpretation of it and how he used it.

VPW used The Bible. He could have also used the Quran. The Talmud. The Silmarillion. Or any holy book.

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT THE SILMARILLION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(with that I will retire to Doctrinal... I posted an English haiku there about speaking in tongues, for anybody who is interested)

Love,

Steve

[Rocky]

I don't really disagree with your point. However, there has been a very concerted effort by a number of people here at GSC to intellectually erase or eradicate any value in it.

I think a more fair characterization would be concerted effort to debunk Wierwille's teachings, which contain a LOT of bunk.

Eradicate what value?

[MRAP]

Does this topic really belong on this forum? It would seem, at least to me, that it belongs in "doctrinal". Yeh, correct, now you can stay within GSC protocol and use the topic to dis on twi while avoiding the topic of the thread. I see games here on GSC by resurection of threads and then placing them into a forum thread that channels/stipulates what you can say. I also enjoy reading the resurrected threads but correctly post them so as not to restrict comment. It's strange how the old threads jump all over the place without restricion (thus now you can place them where you want) and now you are supposed to "stay on topic". It seems that stay on topic is a recently exercised rule. Just an observation, am sure I will take hits.

[waysider]

It would seem, at least to me, that it belongs in "doctrinal".

That's a fair observation. Maybe a moderator could move it to doctrinal?

(I, myself, wouldn't have the slightest idea how to move it, as I've never been a moderator and my technical skills are abysmal.)

[MRAP]

Thanks Waysider but I doubt it will be moved because if it were, then you would be off topic to dis on twi. I am not a twi follower but even on the doctrinal forum it seems open to dis on twi or twi off-shoots. Then again, this is an anti twi site where any poster can dis at discretion on any forum. At times I forget that rule.

[Rocky]

Thanks Waysider but I doubt it will be moved because if it were, then you would be off topic to dis on twi. I am not a twi follower but even on the doctrinal forum it seems open to dis on twi or twi off-shoots. Then again, this is an anti twi site where any poster can dis at discretion on any forum. At times I forget that rule.

Expecting to take hits, eh?

Perhaps that would be because you are projecting your expectations as such. I would suggest that you might benefit from some of the research of Daniel Goleman.

As far as rules for staying on topic, wouldn't that be a courtesy to your fellow posters? ;)

[Mod Kirk]

Leaving it here for now...it managed to survive 107 pages in this forum :biglaugh:/>

[Raf]

I made a concerted effort to not have this thread be doctrinal. It's about practice, not doctrine, and it does not challenge doctrine in the slightest.

VPW taught us how to fake it. I think I've established that beyond a reasonable doubt.

All that said, Modkirk, I think, considering how it was hashed, rehashed, got out of hand (for which I take sole responsibility) and blissfully slept for quite a while, it might be best to move it to Questioning Faith, where people who are interested in the topic have recently resurrected it.

I leave that to your judgment.

[p.s. Not that it's necessary, as I think it's pretty clearly water under the bridge at this point, but I would again like to apologize to Chockfull for my conduct in this thread, as well as to anyone else who was offended by my approach to the subject matter. That is entirely my responsibility. I do not apologize for the subject matter, however. That s--- is fair game. ;)]

Edited February 8, 2016 by Raf

[chockfull]

I made a concerted effort to not have this thread be doctrinal. It's about practice, not doctrine, and it does not challenge doctrine in the slightest.

VPW taught us how to fake it. I think I've established that beyond a reasonable doubt.

All that said, Modkirk, I think, considering how it was hashed, rehashed, got out of hand (for which I take sole responsibility) and blissfully slept for quite a while, it might be best to move it to Questioning Faith, where people who are interested in the topic have recently resurrected it.

I leave that to your judgment.

[p.s. Not that it's necessary, as I think it's pretty clearly water under the bridge at this point, but I would again like to apologize to Chockfull for my conduct in this thread, as well as to anyone else who was offended by my approach to the subject matter. That is entirely my responsibility. I do not apologize for the subject matter, however. That s--- is fair game. ;)/>]

Raf very honestly my behavior on this thread earlier caused me to look in the mirror and re-evaluate some things. I also was not pleased with the reflection. I'm thankful for the personal growth that ensued though and I think this thread for me personally and for many was a great source of reflection on how to recover from TWI - where do you go from there? What I saw in myself was some vestiges of TWI ego - the need to "be right" or "be more scripturally accurate" or "be the spiritual person in the room". The elitist TWI attitude. Knowledge still puffs up and charity still builds up.

However people choose to personally worship God in prayer is cool with me - some do the tongues thing, others like the holy hands thing (I was always more of an air guitar player myself), others like silence and meditation and a burning candle. Like giving, that's their personal choice, preference, and freedom. Some sing, some cry, some scream. I think whenever you think of Him and however you think of Him when you do it triggers something special for you.

For those who no longer identify with Christianity, perhaps there is a form of meditation that might fulfill a void. Self-reflection, peacefulness, and the outdoors always have been attractions for me.

Tongues whatever else it is it is supposed to be for worship. Worship in general is good for the soul in some format. Where I'm at now on all this topic is just making sure I have something going on in that category of life to be balanced and feel balanced.

Peace out.