waysider

Atheists should not be excluded from doctrinal discussions, especially when it comes to dissecting finer academic points. A book discussion group can have a valid discussion of a fictional novel while recognizing that the characters in it aren't real people. For example, What do you think Holden Caulfield (The Catcher in the Rye) meant when he said blah, blah, blah?

I'm going to try not to veer too far off topic. The epistles were written before the gospels. Yet, how much do we see in the gospels regarding speaking in tongues? My personal belief is that the Pauline epistles were written and targeted for an immediate audience, not for future times. Anything beyond that should probably be discussed somewhere other than this thread.

I never said it wasn't important. However, it's a subject that should be (and has been) discussed independently and on its own merit because it will inevitably extend beyond the scope of the subject at hand. My suggestion is to start a separate thread on it or search for one that has already taken place.

This is begging for a discussion of dispensationalism and chronology. Not an entirely bad subject to discuss but very much out of place in this discussion.

I don't find it unreasonable. There is nothing in the Bible that asks for proof of Gifts of Healing, either. It seems rather silly, though, to proclaim it has taking place when the malady in question remains painfully observable. Just because the Bible doesn't ask for a claim to be tested doesn't absolve it from common sense scrutiny.

And that was why we had practice sessions.... to enhance our theatrical presentation. The more you practiced, the better you got at delivering a persuasive presentation.

Speaking in tongues was not simply "the icing on the cake", it was one of THE cornerstone beliefs of Way theology. It set us apart from mainstream Christianity. The manifestations were the high point of every twig meeting because they established the event as being sanctioned by God. Followers invested heavily in its "reality". Were there Christians that didn't speak in tongues? (I'm using past tense because we're talking about our past involvement.) Of course there were. We considered them to be weak and ineffectual because they lacked a direct connection. WE WERE SPIRITUAL ELITISTS!. Without SIT (and the law of believing) as a major part of our identity we were just another one of countless Bible study groups.That's why it's hard for people to see it for what it is. (IMO)

This is a day (or 3) late and a dollar short. It addresses an issue that was recently raised on a previous page. ----------------------- Phoneme is not an obscure word. In fact, it's rather a commonly used word. One of the first things a language student learns is the list of phonemes associated with the language they are studying. In essence, they are the particular sounds used in a language. They are not the individual letters of the alphabet. In English, for example, the letter C can have several sounds, some when it is used by itself and more when it is combined with the letter H to form CH. In addition, identical letters can produce different sounds. French provides a good example. The CH combination in French does not sound like the CH combination in English. I am currently a (mostly casual) student of one of the Asian languages. One thing I find somewhat interesting is that a phoneme from one language can be injected into another language and seem to fit when, in reality, it does not. It only sounds like it does. I think this somewhat explains why we can hear a "tongue" and think it sounds like a legitimate language.

The comparison has already been made. The comparison focuses on existence vs. nonexistence. Comparisons beyond that would be straw man in nature until existence is established.

"If none exists, then it's because your genetic research isn't complete or good enough. Because it happened." So, now we're back to this. "It happened." That's a claim. As such, it requires substantiation of a non-circular variety.

Close your eyes and go back in time to the days of excellor sessions. "Johnny, bring forth a tongue that has all the words beginning with the letter B sound.-- Uh huh Uh huh.-- very good.-- Now bring forth a tongue while you sell me this syllabus.--Good job, Johnny." Now open your eyes again and try to count all the red flags that are waving all over the place.

Now, HERE's some bottleneck I can get behind. Yeah, it's off-topic, but it does have Jesus in the title.....so there's that. WARNING: (Off-Topic....for entertainment purposes only)

And speaking of perspective....... Some will look at the glass and say "It's half empty." Some will look at the glass and say "It's half full." I look at the glass and say "Hey! who's been drinking my beer?"

"The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children." Using one scripture to prove another is circular. Like that recent commercial.... "They can't lie on the internet." "How do you know that?" "I read it on the internet."

The poster's questions are addressed in the links that were provided. It takes a bit of sifting through to find them but that's the nature of the beast.

Huge success. Especially with people who had already tried and failed with other groups. They saw people doing it with ease and confidence and said "Sign me up! I want that, too!" Lots of people signed up for PFAL for that very reason. When we were in the presence of people who were already experienced, we often used prophesy instead, which is supposed to be the same message without the preemptive tongue portion. Of course, as you already discovered, we were supposed to do the tongue portion, silently, as the acceptable method of personal prayer I was in a 2 year communal living type training program where we routinely did this "tongues with interpretation/prophesy" stuff a bare minimum of twice a day,every day. Do the math. It loses its mystique rather quickly.

Well, but you see they DO understand because, immediately following the tongue portion, the same speaker interprets the message in the audiences' language. Here's an example of what it might sound like: "Lo Shanta La Go ba Tagga taka see tay...Yea, my little children. I am your God and father and I love you dearly." (spoken with emotional intensity) In the excellor sessions, we practiced on expanding our messages and developing the theatrical nature of the presentation

In The Way, there was a lot of emphasis put on it being a sign to unbelievers. Scriptural reference, of course, was cited. We had a class called the Intermediate Class that taught us a specific protocol to be followed when performing what were referred to as the three utterance manifestations. (According to Way doctrine, when you become born again you automatically receive an innate ability to speak in tongues, as well as an ability to perform several other spiritual acts...nine, in total. Way doctrine also states that these are not individual gifts, but, rather, the evidence of one gift, which is indwelling holy spirit.) Part of that protocol dictates that when the believer brings forth speaking in tongues in a group setting, the same person is to immediately follow it with an interpretation that is given in the language of the people present. This is supposed to serve as a sign that something spiritual is taking place. In the Intermediate class, we engaged heavily in practice sessions to enhance the theatrics involved. These were called excellor sessions. We practiced diction, speed, fluency, emotional presentation and so on. Then, when the situation presented itself, the message would appear to have spontaneity and enthusiasm. We weren't supposed to pre-plan our messages. This aided in the extemporaneous nature of the event. It was to Wow! people Does this address your question about how it applies to witnessing?

Your question about how someone can unintentionally fake SIT/TIP/Prophesy is answered very early in the discussion.

I don't recall anyone asking you to.

I think if you spend some time in the link I provided it will become more obvious to you.

This is one of the dangers of not understanding something within the context of its presentation. When we discussed the subject of faking SIT, we weren't implying that anyone did so intentionally. (Some may have deceitfully faked it, of course. Wierwille, himself, stated that he once intentionally faked SIT by reciting Greek or something to that effect.) We thought it was real but it wasn't. That's what was meant by fake. HERE is a good thread that covers quite a bit of ground on the subject.

You answered my question by intentionally misrepresenting a section of scripture . That in itself is extremely relevant and telling.

Here's what it says in verse 19: "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." It says nothing about being "the biggest suckers on the planet". Yeah, I know, you're paraphrasing. The thing is, when you paraphrase something, you are obligated to retain the intended essence. Otherwise, you're not paraphrasing, you're simply giving an opinion.

LINK