waysider

Bingo!! Hence, the introduction of time demarcations (administrations/dispensations), spiritual understanding vs. carnal understanding and "to whom it's written" become tools for squeezing square pegs into round holes.

Language is the ability to acquire and use complex systems of communication, particularly the human ability to do so, and a language is any specific example of such a system. The scientific study of language is called linguistics. Let's be honest here. We're not really talking about whistles and groans and grunts that whales and elephants make or the elaborate mating dance of the Wicky Wacky Hooky Hacky Bird. And, we're not talking about fortran, java, basic or any other computer languages. We're talking about speaking in tongues and the languages of human beings. Toss the languages of angels into the mix if you feel you really must. "True or false. Glossolalia can or might be an authentic form of communication." Surprisingly, the answer to that is true. Body language, facial expressions, pitch and volume modulation can all be considered types of communication. Do they, in and of themselves constitute language? No. Communication, yes. Language, no. All known human languages (yeah, I know, there's the angel thing, too.) follow complex systems, formats, syntax. Some of these systems are as different as night is from day. For example, in English, the verb can be positioned at various places within a sentence, while in one particular Asian language I have a glancing experience with, the verb always appears at the end of the sentence and articles are nonexistent. Lots of other profound differences as well. Point being, although they are vastly different, they both represent complex systems that follow definitive formats. Speaking in tongues does not do that. To prove the validity of speaking in tongues, you don't have to identify the specific language being spoken. You merely have to demonstrate that it meets the defining criteria for language. You have to show that it goes beyond unstructured (though usually quite convincing) utterances.

Like eavesdropping on a bunch of kids, trying to convince each other Santa Claus is real.

I liked The Vatican Rag. "It's got a good beat and it's easy to dance to." I give it about a 73.

Steve This is a bit of a straw man. I never suggested anything that involved altered states of consciousness or drugs or whatever. In addition, you're asking that I "produce a proper historical citation that genuine, Biblical speaking in tongues, the non-ecstatic type, predates Christianity.") Without first defining "genuinely, Biblical speaking in tongues", that task is not possible.

"Since the communication being done in SIT is between God (I Corinthians 14:2) and the Holy Spirit, human language... or the lack of one... doesn't make any difference at all." Well, I guess that settles it then. Speaking in tongues doesn't have to conform to linguistic standards because......it's spiritual. Now, wasn't that easy? It does say, however, that when they spoke in tongues in Acts 2, people understood them. That suggests to me that their vocalizations must have had some sort of systematic arrangement that was understood by the hearers.

When it's referred to in the Bible, it's in the sense of speaking, of being a language, not merely a communication. Communication and language are not necessarily synonymous. Yes, animals communicate, sometimes through sounds, sometimes through posturing, sometimes through pheromones, sometimes by altering physical surroundings. Loosely speaking, some might refer to that as language. It's not, it's communication. Among the many ways that humans communicate, one of them is speech. Speech has regimented structure, framework, syntax. Speaking in tongues (as we know it from our time in The Way) does not. We can, whether consciously or not, control it in such a manner as to make it APPEAR to be systematically structured. Christians are not the only ones or even the originators of said activity. The type of speaking in tongues being observed today (glossolalia) predates Christianity and is practiced by groups that are decidedly non-Christian. Maybe there really is such a thing as genuine speaking in tongues. I don't know. I would think, however, that most Christian people would opt for the genuine, rather than the pseudo version if, indeed, it were available, rather than resist the obvious.

It just occurred to me that by inserting the letter "n" in the third position we would be creating an Age of Porcine, as well.

Spec While I don't necessarily agree with all the points you're presenting, I do appreciate the thoughtful way in which you're presenting them.

If there was a real place called GreaseSpot Cafe, it would probably have a big neon sign in the front window, flashing brightly, proclaiming this message.

Well, whatever language VPW's "tongue" was, it never seemed to change. Maybe the message was just so powerful it had to be repeated over and over and over again. Lo Shanta La Maka See Tay!

You got my vote.

"Ooh, book idea. Plagiarize the way books whole sale. Just word for word. Instead of crediting VPW or whoever, credit the original authors. I wonder if twi would try to take any legal action, and if so, if it would hold up. I know, a great big, who cares? but the irony appeals to me" .................................................................................. The Way books are protected by copyright. Go figure. So much for the "Oh, it's from God so it should belong to everyone." mantra.

Oh, my! What a loving, caring individual VPW must have been. (You know he wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?)

"Given that it produces the same intended effect or benefits (if it does), is proof enough of the authenticity or "realness" of it." Except it doesn't. If it did, it would be easy to authenticate. In fact, when coupled with the bogus law of believing (camera analogy from The Bible Tells Me So), it can have gravely damaging effects. Case in point: People have tried to use this method to resolve complex, serious issues while ignoring proven methods of intervention. Some paid dearly. Some even died. So, when people tell me it couldn't hurt, my response would be that the outcome is relative to the situation. edit: grammar

Yes, I can see that now. I really must speak in tongues more. Where, oh where, was my believing?

Confounding the wise........It's the loving thing to do.

"Debate is combative" Debate is not a combative endeavour. It would be more accurate for you to say you perceive it to be combative. Perception and reality do not always agree. "So, for any that claim or seem to think that they have really escaped from the "unable to think outside the box" syndrome that is generally attributed here to TWI... TWI wasn't and isn't the only place were such boxes exist." You are correct in noting TWI is not the only place such boxes exist. However, this forum is concerned with TWI, in particular, not those other places. Can we return to topic now?

Thank you, shortfuse. Time and time again, people come here and try to minimize the gravity of Wierwille's plagiarism. "Oh, well, at least he got us to read the Bible", or "Yes, but I spoke in tongues.", etc. In a sense, his plagiarism was far worse than the average variety where a song or book or paper is plagiarized. Not only did he claim the work was his own, he claimed his work was the result of a special divine, connection. What he did was seriously wrong on multiple levels. And, he was aware that he was doing it. Adding to that, a good deal of what he promoted has been debunked as being inaccurate. Where is the value in that?

Thank you, Steve. That is my recollection of that session, as well.

“Nay, if there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth.” ..................John Wesley

"I think we all repackage ideas in our ways, and categorically declaring what some one else's motive is behind it far more dangerous and difficult than perceiving where the idea might have originated from. Apart from the plagiarism, if "many of Wierwille's words" stopped people from thinking, it might as also be said that many of his words started people thinking. What remains unanswered in either of those statements, is what kind of thinking stopped (in some?) and what kind started (in some?), and what evidence there is of his intent for either." Correct me if I'm wrong. From this unfortunate statement I surmise you minimize the blatant (and, yes, I do mean blatant.) plagiarism of VPW. I can only assume you have not given due diligence to examining the extent of his plagiarism or are, alternatively, excusing it. Wierewille lifted entire chapters, almost word for word. In some cases, he lifted the entire work and claimed it as his own, despite lying by saying he hauled all his references to the dump and relied on God teaching him. (How's that for understanding his intent?). If you do not yet fully understand the impact of his actions in this regard, I suggest you dig a good bit deeper into some of the sources on this site or ask for help. (suggested reading: HERE) "The ideas of Martin Luther and John Wesley have weathered a storm or two, don't you think?" How does that show relevance? Now, back to topic.

"Consider, for example, the lives of men like Martin Luther or John Wesley." Relevance?

My apologies to all for allowing myself to engage in a discussion that has driven this thread off topic.

TLC/post #222: "But I honestly don't (and never did, as best I can recall) associate that (what you say above) being taught in session#7." Holy Bibles, Batman!! Did we even take the same class?? That's the very essence of the whole three hour drivel fest. Indoctrination at its finest. If the Listening With A Purpose questions give any indication, here is the very first one: 1. What are the 5 steps the serpent used to deceive Eve? post #220: "The original sin was taught wrong, so I don't give a flip about your alluding to it." Session #8 is the session that introduces the *unforgivable* sin. (not the original sin) It's defined in part as Sin against the Holy Ghost/Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit and results in being Born Again of the Seed of Satan. (according to the 1971 syllabus) The first teaching I ever heard on the "original sin" was contained in the Christian Family and Sex class. edited yet again: When Wierwille taught the original sin in CF&S, he said he had no scripture references and we were supposed to just "trust" him..... (Cuz ya know, he was such a fine, upstanding and trust worthy guy. ....don't cha know?)