If you check out the SIT, TIP confession thread, you'll probably see a "how convenient is that" type of argument weaving through my posts.
Why can't linguists detect an actual language when a person is speaking in tongues in an observable setting?
List the reasons. They're hilarious.
1. The linguist's knowledge is limited.
2. God won't subject himself to a test. It's genuine when the speaker is speaking under conditions that are not being observed, but take the same speaker performing the same action in the same way while someone is watching and taking notes, and suddenly God's not energizing it anymore. The speaker can't tell the difference. But trust me, God energizes it in church, but won't energize it in a lab. How convenient is that?
3. God promised NO ONE would understand when a person speaks in tongues. Acts 2 was an anomaly. Other anomalies include stories about people visiting fellowships from West Bubbagump, astonished to hear someone who's never been to West Bubbagump suddenly speaking in fluent West Bubbagumpian! At last, a confirmed case of SIT producing a language, violating the ironclad rule that NO ONE would understand (a rule that suddenly becomes as ironclad as a colander)! So where are these West Bubbagumpians? Gone. No one has seen or heard from them since. How convenient is that?
Another modern example of "how convenient is that" ties into the post hoc ergo procter hoc fallacy (forgive any misspelling).
How many people can cite a miracle that goes something like this: So-and-so got a diagnosis of severe fatal cornitearjerkititis. So we prayed for So-and-so. Next time So-and-so visited the hospital, all traces of the disease were gone! It's a miracle!
The implication is that the prayer triggered action from God that led to the curing of the disease. Indeed, no other explanation is even entertained. To God be the glory, right?
But what happens if you reverse the results?
When my friend's wife was knocked down by a stroke, so many of us prayed for her. Prayed and prayed and prayed. And she died. Using the same logic as the previous example, I should be able to say that the prayers triggered God's intervention resulting in the woman's premature death, right?
Oh, no? NOW it's a fallacy? NOW we seek alternative explanations?
"This class will answer all your questions. All you have to do is sit through 36 mind-numbing hours of blather and ask us again when it's over."
how convenient is that?
uuuuhhhmmm...............Not so much.
It was 39 when I took it, and it was even more mind numbing. I sat through it 1 (one) other time as a helper and honestly tried to figure out what all I had to do to not actually be in there. It was worse than I remembered. I read all the books when I first went through in 79, then when we left in 87, I read them all again and couldn't believe how badly written they were.
Recommended Posts
Raf
If you check out the SIT, TIP confession thread, you'll probably see a "how convenient is that" type of argument weaving through my posts.
Why can't linguists detect an actual language when a person is speaking in tongues in an observable setting?
List the reasons. They're hilarious.
1. The linguist's knowledge is limited.
2. God won't subject himself to a test. It's genuine when the speaker is speaking under conditions that are not being observed, but take the same speaker performing the same action in the same way while someone is watching and taking notes, and suddenly God's not energizing it anymore. The speaker can't tell the difference. But trust me, God energizes it in church, but won't energize it in a lab. How convenient is that?
3. God promised NO ONE would understand when a person speaks in tongues. Acts 2 was an anomaly. Other anomalies include stories about people visiting fellowships from West Bubbagump, astonished to hear someone who's never been to West Bubbagump suddenly speaking in fluent West Bubbagumpian! At last, a confirmed case of SIT producing a language, violating the ironclad rule that NO ONE would understand (a rule that suddenly becomes as ironclad as a colander)! So where are these West Bubbagumpians? Gone. No one has seen or heard from them since. How convenient is that?
Etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Another modern example of "how convenient is that" ties into the post hoc ergo procter hoc fallacy (forgive any misspelling).
How many people can cite a miracle that goes something like this: So-and-so got a diagnosis of severe fatal cornitearjerkititis. So we prayed for So-and-so. Next time So-and-so visited the hospital, all traces of the disease were gone! It's a miracle!
The implication is that the prayer triggered action from God that led to the curing of the disease. Indeed, no other explanation is even entertained. To God be the glory, right?
But what happens if you reverse the results?
When my friend's wife was knocked down by a stroke, so many of us prayed for her. Prayed and prayed and prayed. And she died. Using the same logic as the previous example, I should be able to say that the prayers triggered God's intervention resulting in the woman's premature death, right?
Oh, no? NOW it's a fallacy? NOW we seek alternative explanations?
How convenient is that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"This class will answer all your questions. All you have to do is sit through 36 mind-numbing hours of blather and ask us again when it's over."
how convenient is that?
uuuuhhhmmm...............Not so much.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
It was 39 when I took it, and it was even more mind numbing. I sat through it 1 (one) other time as a helper and honestly tried to figure out what all I had to do to not actually be in there. It was worse than I remembered. I read all the books when I first went through in 79, then when we left in 87, I read them all again and couldn't believe how badly written they were.
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.