Leaderboard

Ok, things are a lot more calm than they were 24 hours ago. Thank you all. I keep saying I've run out of patience, and I keep allowing myself to get drawn back in to answer just one more thing. But the just one more thing is invariably something that's already been answered. We're now just finding new ways to answer the same old questions, rehashed, repackaged, and most certainly reheated. In the most recent substantive post, chockfull asks a bunch of questions and makes a bunch of the same old accusations. At one point this argument was moving in circles. Which, I guess, is fine if you like merry go rounds. Now I get the sense we are not moving at all. It's not a constructive use of anyone's time. Please, it's not that I can't refute the last post. It's that on the majority of points made, I've already addressed or refuted them. Just because the questions keep getting asked doesn't mean they haven't been answered. I submit neither of us will persuade another person either way. So, ok. God won't participate in a satanic study. The linguists are incompetent. They don't know a devil spirit from the holy spirit. Free vocalization doesn't exist. The term "innate human ability" doesn't matter. Stating an opinion as fact is a bad, bad thing. When Raf does it. Perfectly ok when Chockfull does. Samarin was an incompetent hack who conducted shoddy research that gets quoted as an authority on the subject by everyone studying glossolalia to this day. Shoddy shoddy shoddy. But Matthew C. Landry, a geologist who was a college student minoring in religious studies when he wrote a class paper that clearly took sides on the issue and was more biased than a Rush Limbaugh radio program, a paper that quoted Samarin so far out of context it made Samarin look like he was saying the 180 degrees opposite of what we know he concludes-- Landry deserves protection from any criticism. Noting that he was a college student is an ad hominem attack. Renouncing Samarin's findings because he's not born again is not an ad hominem attack. No, that's spiritually astute. You know what? Enough. It is impossible to argue with someone when the common ground shifts every 5-10 posts. No mas. I've said my peace. I've presented the only evidence I have access to at this time. If I learn more, I'll present more. But to paraphrase the Monty Python crew, we haven't been having an argument. We've just been having contradictions. No, we haven't? Yes, we have. Count me out. Peace.