If someone were pronounced dead and verified to be so by competant medical authorities, beyond a shadow of a doubt...and he was raised from the dead...all of this witnessed by disinterested observers/witnesses...sure, I'd believe it.
If somebody told me that he'd heard about somebody raising somebody else from the dead, but was light on specifics, and there was no observer/witness without a vested interest in the story being true, sure I'd be doubtful.
Most (if not all) stories and incidents about supernatural occurences occur away from any means of impartial verification. Doesn't mean that they're not true, it means that telling the story, or even believing it doesn't make it true.
quote: You musta purchased a phenomenal amount of snake oil in your life, if you find simple analysis to be abhorrent.
I've got nothing against simple analysis, but overanalysis can become an end unto itself. It doesn't seem to be a very appealing existence to me. To each his own, I guess.
I've never even heard of any "spiritual" incident being overanalyzed. Blind acceptance and rampant credulity seem to be more the order of the day with the "believer" camp I'm familiar with.
Good idea Socks. A sort of "All JAL - All the Time" network. I'm sure he'd approve (and Jeff too, no doubt).
quote: I've got nothing against simple analysis, but overanalysis can become an end unto itself.
DrtyDzn -- so true. Kinda like the dog chewing the bone so much, there is nothing left.
Well -- as you say, to each their own. I for one would not mind "chewing" the bone a little bit, but I would like to have something left afterwards, and not just a bunch of fragments left over from "worrying" over it so much.
quote: Blind acceptance and rampant credulity ......
That is not acceptable to me either, (though Lord knows I'm as guilty as the next for having engaged in such).
Blind acceptance is the antithesis of analysis, just as over-analysis is the antithesis of analysis. The blind acceptance can be considered infra-red, and the over-analysis can be considered ultra-violet, and guess where plain old analysis sits?? Right. There in the middle. On an even keel. Not extreme on either end. Could be even described as balanced.
To be overly skeptical, or cynical isn't my cup of tea. Having been involved with the extreme ends of fanaticism as far as religion is involved, I find it very comforting to "ride out the storm" by questioning all things, accepting some, discarding others, and having a bone left to chew on, after it is all said and done.
I lost count of how many times the article states "it's important to note" and "it's unfortunate" but it's enough times to know there's important stuff to note and unfortunately, some people aren't notating enough apparently.
I always take issue with a Tips and Hints section to teachings on operating holy spirit, be it manifestations, gifts, or whatchcallit. Let's call it mannie's for short. "Praise vocabulary"? Words to start with to get directed correctly? I thmell a thee and thou forthcoming, thir. What happened to authentic behavior? IE, e.g. and to wit, a question - if a person was taught the acc'racy of God's Word and led to believe that they could act accordingly in faith, wouldn't the correct results follow? Or no?
If a person has to be taught what to say, what it's supposed to sound like and the kinds of words and messages that should be coming out, what are we really doing here? It's just a question.
"If a person has to be taught what to say, what it's supposed to sound like and the kinds of words and messages that should be coming out, what are we really doing here?"
That's the sort of questions that were streaming through my head the first time I took the "TIP" class. Fortunately there were plenty of "fully instructed" types around to straighten me out...
IF the PFAL series led people to do the wrong thing - 1000's of people all being "led" in to manifesting and then doing it over and over 1000's of times - all of these people just sure that what they're doing is right by the Word, their hearts, the results, all of that...it casts an ever so small shadow over someone coming along, poking at a bone or two and then basically doing the same thing.
It says something to me. I'm not saying that we were taught right or wrong. I'm just saying that my experience of 21 years of doing this, seeing it, teaching it, leading it, etc. etc. ... tells me that perfectly good hearted and well intended people have a way of doing what they're told to do when they place their trust in the people telling them what to do. And then reinforcing that through repetition and validating it with their own experiences and the encouragement of the people telling them what to do.
Which is fine I guess. But for example, the difference between a manufactured model of a dog is much different than a real dog. A model looks and smells like a dog. It IS a dog, it just doesn't actually wag it's tail or dump on your lawn. But a real dog barks and jumps and licks you and chases down the frisbee and growls at strangers. It's a dog.
I really have to wonder if we know the difference. The way some people view their faith they can get the stuffed pooch and be perfectly happy. Sure, I have to drag it behind me cause it doesn't walk on it's own, but it's a perfectly servicable pet. That's a little of how I feel when I see that people have to be led by the nose to get this stuff to "work right". Maybe I'm over analyzing. I respect what people do in honest faith, or I try to anyway. I should add that despite my comments I like the John Lynn I knew, who's probably a lot like the John Lynn of now. At any rate, he was a good friend. So my critique ain't personal, by any means.
quote: That's a little of how I feel when I see that people have to be led by the nose to get this stuff to "work right". Maybe I'm over analyzing.
I don't know if this is analyzing at all. I'd think of it more as looking at the results (fruit) of a practice to determine if it holds very much truth.
I know 'mannies' very rarely did anything for me, but I found SIT fun.
"...To be overly skeptical, or cynical isn't my cup of tea. Having been involved with the extreme ends of fanaticism as far as religion is involved, I find it very comforting to "ride out the storm" by questioning all things, accepting some, discarding others, and having a bone left to chew on, after it is all said and done..."
10-4 Dmiller~~~ got anymore tapes ya think I would be interested in?
The Gospel According to St John
Chapter 20: and verse 29 look it up once and awhile again!
Sorry to intrude all, but I just thought that something OakSpear said a few days back deserves repeating:
"As usual, no discussion from the guy who posted the link; kind of reminds me of the recorded political phone calls I find on my answering machine every day."
Yeah, to anyone who's hung around this site for more than a few months it gets pretty obvious. Jeffy comes on, makes a pitch for us all to mozy on over to the 'ol CES cafe and set a spell, maybe take a class 'er two.
The commercials get kinda boring. The script always goes something like "WOW! You should hear the amazing stuff that that great guy JOHN LYNN is saying THESE days. Boy, it's not like that 'ol nasty TWI stuff, no sirree. It's all new and improved and sure to perk up your pathetic P.O.S. life that you're leading."
Since I was taught the wrong way to Speak in Tongues and Interpret in TWI, I thought you might enjoy this article by John Lynn. It sheds some new biblical light on the subject.
Here is a small promotional blurb we sent out to our mailing list.
"The vast majority of such Christians, who do believe in and practice speaking in tongues and interpretation, have apparently not been taught the biblical truth that interpretation of tongues is not a message from God, and that it must be done by the one who speaks in tongues. If you are of such a persuasion, we hope that this article helps you to better understand this magnificent manifestation by which you can even more exquisitely extol the virtues of our great big, wonderful God.
And if you are in the habit of your interpretation being a message from God to the people, this article contains a tip that will help you make the transition from speaking in tongues and then prophesying to the actual interpretation of tongues."
There is a printer-friendly link on every article halfway down the right side of the page.
:)-->
Enjoy!
Jeff
Jeff I read the article from John Lynn & it doesn't even make sense. First of all speaking in tongues is not unto men but to God. We were always taught that. It does NOT say that the interpretation is to God. It clearly says it will edify the church. Praise to God would edify God.
In addition why would God have to give you words to praise himself, that does not sound correct. And you have to practice saying My Father?
This seems as far off the ball as anything I've ever read. Sorry but edifying the church is clear.......Again, speaking in tongues is to God but it does not say the interpretation is. Now this is a new doctrine? It seems that some people's adgenda is to try to disprove the things that they have learned. Personally I do not see it nor do I agree with the concept. If I wanted to praise God I could do it with my own words. On the other hand if God wants to bless the people present, he can inspire me to do so.
So someone tell me why God Almighty has to tell me what to say to praise him. If he reads the heart and I have a mind of my own, I certainly think I can think of many things to praise God with w/out him having to tell me. It's like God is talking to himself thru me???????
A fellow student of Dr. Voobus (Bob Wassung) and I attended a region meeting near Chicago. We both sat next to each other. During manifestations, a WOW ambassador stood to speak in tongues and interpret. As I sat there, half way paying attention to the tongues which I was not used to understanding, I noticed I was actually understanding the tongue. I immediately looked to my right, to my friend Bob, who was staring at me with his mouth open. We were both understanding the tongue. The man was speaking in perfect Hebrew, which we were both familiar with.
After the manifestations, we both stood up and approached Ralph Dubofsky, who was leading the meeting, and reported what we had just witnessed. We then pointed out the man who had spoken in Hebrew, and he verified he had no knowledge whatsoever of that language. Not to degrade the man, but he was a country bumpkin type with barely a high school diploma, and a thick southern drawl.
You can interpret the incident anyway you want-- you were not in our shoes.
But Bob Wassung and I know Hebrew. We were BOTH there to witness it. We BOTH heard a man who had no knowlege of the language speak it perfectly, without an accent, and give the interpretation ACCURATELY of what he had just spoken in the Hebrew language.
Take it however you will, believe whatever you will, but NO ONE will be able to successfully refute to me OR to Bob, what we both witnessed that day in Chicago.
The same thing happend to me in a practice session .
I was NEVER comfortable doing it in meetings so my twig coordinator had me practce with some of his friends at his house to be more confident.
so anyways it was during one of these practice sessions that another gal said I was speaking in german and she was able to understand everything I had said.
I did ask her what I said and she said I said what I said in the interperation!!!
ok .
but it did actualy happen.
I do not think she was lying to impress me I still did not like doing it .
Well...yeah, Catcup...no one can successfully refute what you are saying because as you so bluntly pointed out: we weren't there.
The flip side of that is that neither you nor your friend can successfully prove it either.
That's the problem with anecdotal evidence,there's no way to demonstrate either the truth or falsity of it. In this case, the "un-degraded country bumpkin" isn't around to let us hear his Hebrew tongue, or check into his background, or do any of the things that an objective investigator does to verify an account.
No matter how many "irrefutable" incidents that people trot out, it seems that whenever someone does a scientific study of it, they can't verify that tongues are an actual language.
As you say the bible says that tongues are to God, not men. It says that prophesy is to men band is edification and exhortation and comfort (not edification by way of exhortation and comfort, as VPW taught btw).
It goes on to say that interpretion is so that the church may recieve edifying. Does that necessarily mean that it is to men? Could the church not be edified by hearing the praise to God?
It was proof to me. At the time, I didn't need proof, wasn't looking for any. I still don't. I considered it an extra special blessing for myself at the time, and still do. Something God did for me of his own prerogative to bless me because I already believe, not so I would believe. I still look at it that way.
To people who need proof? Hey, I can't convince you, it's between you and God what you believe.
But you're the one who took the "proof to you" and posted it on a public forum. And told us that it couldn't be refuted to you or Bob, and pointed out that we weren't in your shoes. What did you expect?
By the way, I'm not trying to refute your experience, to you or anyone else. Just pointing out that it remains subjective, unprovable and unrefutable. Probably wouldn't have brought it up if you hadn't stuck in the "you can't refute it" line. Like you said: God's blessing to you of his own perogative.
What's wrong with a little proof anyway? Didn't Gideon ask for a sign? Did any of the Old Testament guys and gals believe just because somebody else said to? For all the crap Thomas the Apostle is given for not believing without seeing, all the other guys got to see first, including Paul who got a miraculous vision. All the writers of the bible got to experience God firsthand, everybody else is just supposed to take their word for it? For all the so-called clarity about seeking signs, there sure is a lot of it in the bible.
Hmmm...sounds like a good thread topic...not now...the landlord is here to fix my sink :P-->
Oaks, I think the point of proof is always to the person who the proof was proved. (I'm working on my illiteration, gimme time).
I agree with you on the Thomas getting a bad rap idea. None of Jesus's disciples are said to have believed anything about His resurrection until they began to see physical indications. That event wasn't driven by humans "believing" for something to happen or that it could happen. It was done by God. And I see in the bible that while faith in the unseen is prominent, a great deal of faith is based on what WAS seen and that the "faith" developed from experience and was handed down.
I maintain that a person's faith is their own, we each have our own and that I can't have yours nor you mine. They may be similar, very much "the same" but the essence and core of what we accept and over time intuitively "know" to be true is unique to each of us as individuals. No matter that we may believe the same thing, as an example. What happens to you is real to you. I may accept it, believe it and understand it, but it will never truly be a part of "me". That to me is the voice of Thomas. "You guys saw Him, fine. I need to see Him too". If we share in the same experience, we each have a separate registration of the event, one that's our own.
Catcup's "proof" isn't to you in other words. It could be taped, and we'd never know if the tape was tampered with. We could confirm it hadn't been tampered with but we'd never be able to recapture the actual event. 20 people could all say they heard the same thing but they didn't really - they heard what each of them heard of a single event that occured.
Without getting too philosophically mushy, I think it's preferable to use the word "consider" rather than "believe" when it comes to other people's accounts of anything. As in, all things considered, it it possible given the person and the facts as stated. Not necessarily iron clad probable, but possible.
Although I think Catcup's simply stating the facts as she experienced them, that's where a person can logically go IMO. If there was proof to be had in that incident in other words, it would never really be to you. You have to have your own proof. Or not. If you never do, it's not up to me to insist you accept mine, my reasons, my facts, my conclusions. You could, but that's your decision and obviously should be based on more than a few words.
Why do some people have "proof" and others not? I don't know. It may be that in the retelling we have an opportunity to direct our expectations and perceptions towards what's possible and ultimately knowable by our own selves. That's how I see the bible.
"What's wrong with a little proof anyway? Didn't Gideon ask for a sign?"
Did he ask for a sign to proof it to the citizens of his nation? or for himself? I think perhaps that is the difference.
When I was in doubt, I wanted something to settle my doubt. I dont recall, I can't imagine asking G-d for a proof that would satisfy all those who I would have contact wsith in the coming future. In His wisdom and Grace, He gave me something at that time, to prove it to me.
You ask for a copy of it, to be 'tested' by others. That would not prove anything to me. Is it possible that My Father has changed my tongues over the past 20 years, such that that particular tongue is no longer Mandarin? Could be. I dont know. As I do know that we are also told to never 'test' G-d.
What he does, He will do in His own time, and for His own reasons.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
13
13
43
Popular Days
Nov 11
23
Nov 6
22
Nov 7
13
Oct 31
10
Top Posters In This Topic
TheInvisibleDan 13 posts
George Aar 13 posts
socks 13 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame 43 posts
Popular Days
Nov 11 2004
23 posts
Nov 6 2004
22 posts
Nov 7 2004
13 posts
Oct 31 2004
10 posts
Oakspear
If someone were pronounced dead and verified to be so by competant medical authorities, beyond a shadow of a doubt...and he was raised from the dead...all of this witnessed by disinterested observers/witnesses...sure, I'd believe it.
If somebody told me that he'd heard about somebody raising somebody else from the dead, but was light on specifics, and there was no observer/witness without a vested interest in the story being true, sure I'd be doubtful.
Most (if not all) stories and incidents about supernatural occurences occur away from any means of impartial verification. Doesn't mean that they're not true, it means that telling the story, or even believing it doesn't make it true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Actually, I have seen dead people come back to life. It was in Ohio, at a supper meal, dead of winter. Somebody said "there's seconds!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I still think we need a forum titled "John Lynn's Stuff - The Real You Is Finally Here!"
Then Jeff, you could place all of John Lynn's writings, transcripts of tapes, doodles, whatever, right there. It'd be cool.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
I've got nothing against simple analysis, but overanalysis can become an end unto itself. It doesn't seem to be a very appealing existence to me. To each his own, I guess.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I've never even heard of any "spiritual" incident being overanalyzed. Blind acceptance and rampant credulity seem to be more the order of the day with the "believer" camp I'm familiar with.
Good idea Socks. A sort of "All JAL - All the Time" network. I'm sure he'd approve (and Jeff too, no doubt).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
DrtyDzn -- so true. Kinda like the dog chewing the bone so much, there is nothing left.
Well -- as you say, to each their own. I for one would not mind "chewing" the bone a little bit, but I would like to have something left afterwards, and not just a bunch of fragments left over from "worrying" over it so much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
That is not acceptable to me either, (though Lord knows I'm as guilty as the next for having engaged in such).
Blind acceptance is the antithesis of analysis, just as over-analysis is the antithesis of analysis. The blind acceptance can be considered infra-red, and the over-analysis can be considered ultra-violet, and guess where plain old analysis sits?? Right. There in the middle. On an even keel. Not extreme on either end. Could be even described as balanced.
To be overly skeptical, or cynical isn't my cup of tea. Having been involved with the extreme ends of fanaticism as far as religion is involved, I find it very comforting to "ride out the storm" by questioning all things, accepting some, discarding others, and having a bone left to chew on, after it is all said and done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
That's it Geo. 24X7, no waiting.
I lost count of how many times the article states "it's important to note" and "it's unfortunate" but it's enough times to know there's important stuff to note and unfortunately, some people aren't notating enough apparently.
I always take issue with a Tips and Hints section to teachings on operating holy spirit, be it manifestations, gifts, or whatchcallit. Let's call it mannie's for short. "Praise vocabulary"? Words to start with to get directed correctly? I thmell a thee and thou forthcoming, thir. What happened to authentic behavior? IE, e.g. and to wit, a question - if a person was taught the acc'racy of God's Word and led to believe that they could act accordingly in faith, wouldn't the correct results follow? Or no?
If a person has to be taught what to say, what it's supposed to sound like and the kinds of words and messages that should be coming out, what are we really doing here? It's just a question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Socks,
"If a person has to be taught what to say, what it's supposed to sound like and the kinds of words and messages that should be coming out, what are we really doing here?"
That's the sort of questions that were streaming through my head the first time I took the "TIP" class. Fortunately there were plenty of "fully instructed" types around to straighten me out...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Dang tootin' George. Getyer mind right, we will!
IF the PFAL series led people to do the wrong thing - 1000's of people all being "led" in to manifesting and then doing it over and over 1000's of times - all of these people just sure that what they're doing is right by the Word, their hearts, the results, all of that...it casts an ever so small shadow over someone coming along, poking at a bone or two and then basically doing the same thing.
It says something to me. I'm not saying that we were taught right or wrong. I'm just saying that my experience of 21 years of doing this, seeing it, teaching it, leading it, etc. etc. ... tells me that perfectly good hearted and well intended people have a way of doing what they're told to do when they place their trust in the people telling them what to do. And then reinforcing that through repetition and validating it with their own experiences and the encouragement of the people telling them what to do.
Which is fine I guess. But for example, the difference between a manufactured model of a dog is much different than a real dog. A model looks and smells like a dog. It IS a dog, it just doesn't actually wag it's tail or dump on your lawn. But a real dog barks and jumps and licks you and chases down the frisbee and growls at strangers. It's a dog.
I really have to wonder if we know the difference. The way some people view their faith they can get the stuffed pooch and be perfectly happy. Sure, I have to drag it behind me cause it doesn't walk on it's own, but it's a perfectly servicable pet. That's a little of how I feel when I see that people have to be led by the nose to get this stuff to "work right". Maybe I'm over analyzing. I respect what people do in honest faith, or I try to anyway. I should add that despite my comments I like the John Lynn I knew, who's probably a lot like the John Lynn of now. At any rate, he was a good friend. So my critique ain't personal, by any means.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
I don't know if this is analyzing at all. I'd think of it more as looking at the results (fruit) of a practice to determine if it holds very much truth.
I know 'mannies' very rarely did anything for me, but I found SIT fun.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
"...To be overly skeptical, or cynical isn't my cup of tea. Having been involved with the extreme ends of fanaticism as far as religion is involved, I find it very comforting to "ride out the storm" by questioning all things, accepting some, discarding others, and having a bone left to chew on, after it is all said and done..."
10-4 Dmiller~~~ got anymore tapes ya think I would be interested in?
The Gospel According to St John
Chapter 20: and verse 29 look it up once and awhile again!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Jeff USAF RET
You are promoting a dangerous cult oh retired one from the United State Air Force!
Do you know that? And hey "hello" and god bless ya also!
Steven TWI RET
Link to comment
Share on other sites
learning
Sorry to intrude all, but I just thought that something OakSpear said a few days back deserves repeating:
"As usual, no discussion from the guy who posted the link; kind of reminds me of the recorded political phone calls I find on my answering machine every day."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
learning,
Yeah, to anyone who's hung around this site for more than a few months it gets pretty obvious. Jeffy comes on, makes a pitch for us all to mozy on over to the 'ol CES cafe and set a spell, maybe take a class 'er two.
The commercials get kinda boring. The script always goes something like "WOW! You should hear the amazing stuff that that great guy JOHN LYNN is saying THESE days. Boy, it's not like that 'ol nasty TWI stuff, no sirree. It's all new and improved and sure to perk up your pathetic P.O.S. life that you're leading."
Well, if it keeps him off the streets...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LornaDoone
Jeff I read the article from John Lynn & it doesn't even make sense. First of all speaking in tongues is not unto men but to God. We were always taught that. It does NOT say that the interpretation is to God. It clearly says it will edify the church. Praise to God would edify God.
In addition why would God have to give you words to praise himself, that does not sound correct. And you have to practice saying My Father?
This seems as far off the ball as anything I've ever read. Sorry but edifying the church is clear.......Again, speaking in tongues is to God but it does not say the interpretation is. Now this is a new doctrine? It seems that some people's adgenda is to try to disprove the things that they have learned. Personally I do not see it nor do I agree with the concept. If I wanted to praise God I could do it with my own words. On the other hand if God wants to bless the people present, he can inspire me to do so.
So someone tell me why God Almighty has to tell me what to say to praise him. If he reads the heart and I have a mind of my own, I certainly think I can think of many things to praise God with w/out him having to tell me. It's like God is talking to himself thru me???????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
OK, here goes:
A fellow student of Dr. Voobus (Bob Wassung) and I attended a region meeting near Chicago. We both sat next to each other. During manifestations, a WOW ambassador stood to speak in tongues and interpret. As I sat there, half way paying attention to the tongues which I was not used to understanding, I noticed I was actually understanding the tongue. I immediately looked to my right, to my friend Bob, who was staring at me with his mouth open. We were both understanding the tongue. The man was speaking in perfect Hebrew, which we were both familiar with.
After the manifestations, we both stood up and approached Ralph Dubofsky, who was leading the meeting, and reported what we had just witnessed. We then pointed out the man who had spoken in Hebrew, and he verified he had no knowledge whatsoever of that language. Not to degrade the man, but he was a country bumpkin type with barely a high school diploma, and a thick southern drawl.
You can interpret the incident anyway you want-- you were not in our shoes.
But Bob Wassung and I know Hebrew. We were BOTH there to witness it. We BOTH heard a man who had no knowlege of the language speak it perfectly, without an accent, and give the interpretation ACCURATELY of what he had just spoken in the Hebrew language.
Take it however you will, believe whatever you will, but NO ONE will be able to successfully refute to me OR to Bob, what we both witnessed that day in Chicago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
The same thing happend to me in a practice session .
I was NEVER comfortable doing it in meetings so my twig coordinator had me practce with some of his friends at his house to be more confident.
so anyways it was during one of these practice sessions that another gal said I was speaking in german and she was able to understand everything I had said.
I did ask her what I said and she said I said what I said in the interperation!!!
ok .
but it did actualy happen.
I do not think she was lying to impress me I still did not like doing it .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Well...yeah, Catcup...no one can successfully refute what you are saying because as you so bluntly pointed out: we weren't there.
The flip side of that is that neither you nor your friend can successfully prove it either.
That's the problem with anecdotal evidence,there's no way to demonstrate either the truth or falsity of it. In this case, the "un-degraded country bumpkin" isn't around to let us hear his Hebrew tongue, or check into his background, or do any of the things that an objective investigator does to verify an account.
No matter how many "irrefutable" incidents that people trot out, it seems that whenever someone does a scientific study of it, they can't verify that tongues are an actual language.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Lorna:
As you say the bible says that tongues are to God, not men. It says that prophesy is to men band is edification and exhortation and comfort (not edification by way of exhortation and comfort, as VPW taught btw).
It goes on to say that interpretion is so that the church may recieve edifying. Does that necessarily mean that it is to men? Could the church not be edified by hearing the praise to God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
It was proof to me. At the time, I didn't need proof, wasn't looking for any. I still don't. I considered it an extra special blessing for myself at the time, and still do. Something God did for me of his own prerogative to bless me because I already believe, not so I would believe. I still look at it that way.
To people who need proof? Hey, I can't convince you, it's between you and God what you believe.
But the Word is clear about those seeking signs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Catcup:
Yes, it was proof to you. Great. Fine. Wonderful.
But you're the one who took the "proof to you" and posted it on a public forum. And told us that it couldn't be refuted to you or Bob, and pointed out that we weren't in your shoes. What did you expect?
By the way, I'm not trying to refute your experience, to you or anyone else. Just pointing out that it remains subjective, unprovable and unrefutable. Probably wouldn't have brought it up if you hadn't stuck in the "you can't refute it" line. Like you said: God's blessing to you of his own perogative.
What's wrong with a little proof anyway? Didn't Gideon ask for a sign? Did any of the Old Testament guys and gals believe just because somebody else said to? For all the crap Thomas the Apostle is given for not believing without seeing, all the other guys got to see first, including Paul who got a miraculous vision. All the writers of the bible got to experience God firsthand, everybody else is just supposed to take their word for it? For all the so-called clarity about seeking signs, there sure is a lot of it in the bible.
Hmmm...sounds like a good thread topic...not now...the landlord is here to fix my sink
:P-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Oaks, I think the point of proof is always to the person who the proof was proved. (I'm working on my illiteration, gimme time).
I agree with you on the Thomas getting a bad rap idea. None of Jesus's disciples are said to have believed anything about His resurrection until they began to see physical indications. That event wasn't driven by humans "believing" for something to happen or that it could happen. It was done by God. And I see in the bible that while faith in the unseen is prominent, a great deal of faith is based on what WAS seen and that the "faith" developed from experience and was handed down.
I maintain that a person's faith is their own, we each have our own and that I can't have yours nor you mine. They may be similar, very much "the same" but the essence and core of what we accept and over time intuitively "know" to be true is unique to each of us as individuals. No matter that we may believe the same thing, as an example. What happens to you is real to you. I may accept it, believe it and understand it, but it will never truly be a part of "me". That to me is the voice of Thomas. "You guys saw Him, fine. I need to see Him too". If we share in the same experience, we each have a separate registration of the event, one that's our own.
Catcup's "proof" isn't to you in other words. It could be taped, and we'd never know if the tape was tampered with. We could confirm it hadn't been tampered with but we'd never be able to recapture the actual event. 20 people could all say they heard the same thing but they didn't really - they heard what each of them heard of a single event that occured.
Without getting too philosophically mushy, I think it's preferable to use the word "consider" rather than "believe" when it comes to other people's accounts of anything. As in, all things considered, it it possible given the person and the facts as stated. Not necessarily iron clad probable, but possible.
Although I think Catcup's simply stating the facts as she experienced them, that's where a person can logically go IMO. If there was proof to be had in that incident in other words, it would never really be to you. You have to have your own proof. Or not. If you never do, it's not up to me to insist you accept mine, my reasons, my facts, my conclusions. You could, but that's your decision and obviously should be based on more than a few words.
Why do some people have "proof" and others not? I don't know. It may be that in the retelling we have an opportunity to direct our expectations and perceptions towards what's possible and ultimately knowable by our own selves. That's how I see the bible.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Oakspear:
"What's wrong with a little proof anyway? Didn't Gideon ask for a sign?"
Did he ask for a sign to proof it to the citizens of his nation? or for himself? I think perhaps that is the difference.
When I was in doubt, I wanted something to settle my doubt. I dont recall, I can't imagine asking G-d for a proof that would satisfy all those who I would have contact wsith in the coming future. In His wisdom and Grace, He gave me something at that time, to prove it to me.
You ask for a copy of it, to be 'tested' by others. That would not prove anything to me. Is it possible that My Father has changed my tongues over the past 20 years, such that that particular tongue is no longer Mandarin? Could be. I dont know. As I do know that we are also told to never 'test' G-d.
What he does, He will do in His own time, and for His own reasons.
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.