Leaderboard

He did. This thread's gone on for as long as it has partly because it's gone in circles. Raf posted something, and you disagreed. He explained, and you claimed to not get it. Any study was skipped over and parsed for things to jump on, not legitimate points to discuss. (If someone spent several paragraphs on a point, then made one sentence that was obvious in context but sounded like it went in the opposite direction, you jumped all over the sentence.) Just going from his posts, I'd say he's tired of repeating himself. Raf's claimed to have addressed everything (I'd add more than once.) You're claiming he hasn't addressed major points. Both of you are going to keep saying that. Both of you are going to keep meaning that. By definition, at least one of you is wrong. I'd have liked it to have been Raf. Yes, I've known him a long time- but the double-edged sword is that I hold him to a higher standard than I hold you. So, if he leaves matters unspoken, I'm more likely to call him on it, and would at least bring it up when asked. You asked now- he addressed everything. He's under no compulsion to keep on re-addressing it. You're also in error that HIS comments are "snide" or "namecalling." If you thought he was being rude, you could easily have complained. If I thought he was, I WOULD have complained. Earlier, I thought his tone was harsh, although I wouldn't say he was "namecalling." I mentioned it to him. Later, he was (as I perceive it) less harsh, so I dropped it. Later, I noted you were pushing things, while he was going out of his way NOT to. And I said so. I posted about it and let it go at that. Adults should be able to police themselves when they are asked. (I can be moderated effectively by simply being ASKED to be nicer and being reasoned with. That's why I don't get kicked out of places, and keep being offered moderation or staff positions on boards nearly everywhere I go.)

Modern SIT began in the same pseudo-spiritual, paranoid, gullible atmosphere that brought widespread belief in the power of the occult. This was an age in which supposed mediums and spiritists and the like flourished, even though a great many of them were later debunked. This was an age in which supposed photographs of real-honest-to-goodness fairies gained notoriety, when a trio of sisters faked an ability to communicate with the dead and were passionately defended by spiritists and excoriated by Christianity -- with the affirmation and condemnation continuing even after one of them revealed the hoax and explained exactly how it was done. Many of these hucksters were exposed as frauds. Harry Houdini was adept at pointing out the fraud and died without ever seeing a paranormal experience he could call genuine. Fraud was rampant. It was in this era of our history that the modern practice of SIT emerged, the "genuine" "Christian" alternative to these Satanic "displays" of "power" (most of which were explicitly proved fraudulent). It was believed (based on sound scriptural expectations) that what was produced was actually a language. So firm was this belief that the people who produced SIT went out to become missionaries in the countries whose languages they were convinced (based on WHAT?) they were producing. Didn't work out too well for them. So they switched gears and started calling it a spiritual language. Make a provable claim unprovable, and who could discredit it? If I claimed to heal by the power of God, you would demand evidence of healing. If I claimed to work miracles by the power of God, you would demand evidence of miracles. If I claimed I could walk on water by the power of God, you would demand to see me walk on water. You claim to produce a language by the power of God. "No man understands" in the Bible is set in the context of a typical worship meeting, not a blanket prohibition against inquiry. OldSkool is right: the Bible tells us to prove the spirits (inspired utterances, in some translations). It cannot be against His will to do exactly what He asks us to do. SIT is a testable claim. The Bible sets the expectation. SIT fails to meet it. It is not the practice the Bible describes. Either the Bible is wrong or the modern practice is wrong. I know which proposition gets my vote.

There's no question that I have been rude and I have been called on it. Of late, I have tried mightily to cut that out, and I am well aware that I am being closely watched in that regard. I have done my best to restrict my criticisms to arguments and positions, not to people. If people take those criticisms and apply them to themselves instead of their arguments, that's their business and not my problem. Your positions and arguments are fair game, as are mine. I explained my position using scripture and its context to back it up. People are free to disagree with that and free to discuss that. I will not entertain it here any longer. Complaining that this thread is doctrinal when it is not, that it belongs in Soap Opera when it does not, and then fulfilling that prophecy by namecalling and non-productive posts or insisting on a doctrinal discussion and continuing to bicker over the same issues as though they were never addressed, is not something I need to feed into. Taunting me for refusing to engage your "logic" will be unproductive. You're wasting your breath. I'm not even reading your posts anymore.

Ok, I think cman accidentally made a critical point that keeps getting lost in the shuffle. Remember how we studied "faith" vs "believing" and the critical differences in twi? And then how we discussed them at the GSC, and-no surprise!- with both being the same Greek word, the same concept is both words in English, and the differences were added by the doctrines and minds of people in English? "Well, if it was the same thing, it would be called the same thing." Right- it was called the same thing until translators to English took the same word and gave it multiple meanings, either justifying an existing doctrine or accidentally inventing a new doctrine. (I ran into a similar problem with 3 different KJV English words for 1 Greek word, where 2 of the words had denotations the first one did not. So, meanings were added by translators.) Well, we have "tongues" and we have "languages." In Greek, that's the same Greek word. The most sensible thing to do is to begin with one word in Greek being consistently translated as ONE word in English. In this case, we could go with "tongues" in both instances, but that would then make the term less common and more open to muddying the meanings. So, the obvious approach would be: translate it "language" each time. So, we'd end up with "If you understood languages, it's not languages any more. Of course it's a frigging language." We're discussing "speaking in languages."