waysider

I personally don't like equating cults with religious beliefs. There are plenty of cults, past and present, that have nothing to do with religious beliefs. Think about how any hardcore biker "club" operates to interpret my meaning.

As my mother was fond of saying, "You kids fight nice!"

I still want to know what constitutes "genuine".

This is the section of the original post I've been attempting to address: "So one of the results of writing this paper is that I've redefined the primary function; the primary function of speaking in tongues is to enable a Christian to offer perfectly acceptable thanksgiving to God even though our minds are still contaminated with hypocrisy. This is possible because the Spirit, instead of our unregenerate minds, gives us the words to speak." I'm not sure how else to proceed without veering off topic so I think I'll bow out.

"..............if it is from the spirit of God it should include thanksgiving and praise to God." Did it always include thanksgiving and praise to God when we heard it during our time in The Way? (I ask this rhetorically, of course.)

Mark I don't think it's a matter of predetermining the message. Sure, there were people who did this but I think what most of us experienced was a matter of free vocalization. (the tongues segment) As to the message segment, it's more a matter of drawing from mental archives. The sessions were designed in such a way as to instruct us in what parts of the archives were acceptable for presentation, as well as establishing procedure and protocol for the presentation. I realize I'm rambling off-topic but this brings me right back to the issue of establishing what is genuine and what is not. Clearly, based on your anecdote, it's apparent that criteria was in question even all those years ago.

Re: Talking past each other From the original post "So one of the results of writing this paper is that I've redefined the primary function; the primary function of speaking in tongues is to enable a Christian to offer perfectly acceptable thanksgiving to God even though our minds are still contaminated with hypocrisy. This is possible because the Spirit, instead of our unregenerate minds, gives us the words to speak." I am refuting this to be the case with regard to practice sessions.

An illusionist's task is to redirect attention from reality. We were illusionists. We used theatrical techniques to redirect attention away from the reality of what we were doing. These practice sessions were designed to help us perfect our craft.

Historical evidence: Did you ever participate in a practice session? We called them "excellor" sessions. In these sessions we would participate in exercises that had us bringing forth tongues that started each word with a predetermined letter or sound. Sometimes we would do things like sell each other a vacuum cleaner using tongues instead of English or sing a popular song using tongues instead of the actual lyrics. This is not evidence of anything spiritual, it's simply a mental activity. I have seen similar activities performed by Non-Christian participants as well as Christian participants, thus negating the so-called spiritual connection.

Steve Were you involved in THIS discussion? We hammered away at many of these points for 106 pages. What about "practice" sessions? Do you contend that predetermining the beginning sounds of the words is a "genuine" example of speaking in tongues?

It's been my experience that the most successful ones are the ones who have learned how to do these things without being mean, hiding behind a smile.

........... waysider brought upon himself the task of proving that spirit does not function when he wrote, "Speaking in tongues is a function of the human mind, not spirit. History and science demonstrate this to be the case." He claims that history and science demonstrate that speaking in tongues is NOT a function of spirit. I have asked him to cite specific historical and scientific studies demonstrating that speaking in tongues is NOT a function of spirit. I have done this, previously, on other threads. What's the point of doing it again?

"Therefore, I would say, genuine speaking in tongues would have the reputed quality of not being understood by the speaker, and genuine speaking in tongues would not involve faking it." Not understood by the speaker That describes the TWI experience. Would not involve "faking it" Again, describes the TWI experience, as most of us were not consciously practicing deception. Is it just me or do you also see a problem with this definition?

I'm not trying to be a pain but I'm still waiting for you to explain how you determine if something, such as speaking in tongues, is "genuine". What guidelines do you follow? Are there characteristics that expose the fraudulent variety, set it apart from "the real deal"?

As they say on another popular web site, "Explain it like I'm 5."

Earlier, you asked me "What is genuine?" It's not a trick question. What criteria do you use to determine if it's real or not? Now I'm asking you, "Were you deluded then, or are you deluded now? How can you tell?" How can you tell? You weigh your conclusion against the evidence. Believing in something that evidence contradicts is delusion.

I don't think I was "faking", per se. Faking implies a deliberate effort. I think what I was doing was deluding myself into thinking it was real. Even though Charles Parham and William Seymour had pioneered the modern Pentecostal movement in the early 1900's, I had never personally heard of it (in a religious context) before I got involved with The Way. That contributed to my vulnerability, I'm sure.

Steve You're spinning so fast it's making me dizzy. First (and this is important) I never mentioned or even suggested the concept of "altered minds". I simply said it's a mental function. Solving a math problem is a mental function. You don't need to alter your mind to do it. When I studied acting, we used an improvisational technique that is suspiciously similar (OK, it's identical) to what we called speaking in tongues. We weren't in a state of altered consciousness. I did it, my classmates did it, lots of folks did it. Were we all Christians? I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that. What is "genuine"? Who determines the parameters? What's the criteria? If something is going to be declared genuine, there must be defining qualities that differentiate it from the false. Supersymmetry? I lack the sort of scientific and math background needed to address that subject intelligently. I personally suggest a much less ethereal approach. Look objectively at what it is, rather than what it might be.

This is possible because the Spirit, instead of our unregenerate minds, gives us the words to speak. You don't need spirit to speak in tongues. It's done by Non-Christians as well as Christians. Speaking in tongues is a function of the human mind, not spirit. History and science demonstrate this to be the case.

Well, here's the thing. The Way theological system strongly discouraged rational analysis. That's basically what's at the heart of the undershepharding concept. If someone spots a flaw in the system, the idea is to convince them they should continue, even though to do so would clearly be like "throwing good money after bad". As we know, there was even a class (W&US), designed to teach the methods needed to lead people into accepting this fallacy. It didn't just happen randomly, all by itself.

"Exception: If careful evaluation of the hypothetical outcomes of continued investment versus accepting current losses and ceasing all further investment have been made, then choosing the former would not be fallacious."

The Concorde Fallacy is also known as The Sunk-Cost Fallacy. Here is an example of how it works: SUNK-COST FALLACY (also known as: concorde fallacy) Description: Reasoning that further investment is warranted on the fact that the resources already invested will be lost otherwise, not taking into consideration the overall losses involved in the further investment. Logical Form: X has already been invested in project Y. Z more investment would be needed to complete project Y otherwise X will be lost. Therefore, Z is justified. Example #1: I have already paid a consultant $1000 to look into the pros and cons of starting that new business division. He advised that I shouldn’t move forward with it because it is a declining market. However, if I don’t move forward, that $1000 would have been wasted, so I better move forward anyway. Explanation: What this person does not realize is that moving forward will most likely result in the loss of much more time and money. This person is thinking short-term, not long-term, and is simply trying to avoid the loss of the $1000, which is fallacious thinking Link HERE I can think of one specific time I committed this fallacy, early in my days with The Way. (Oh, there were many, many times, to be sure. I'm just citing this as an example.) I was lured into the class by a young lady who expressed a (feigned) personal interest in me. At about session five or so, I realized I had been the victim of Date & Switch tactics. I strongly considered dropping out, then and there. The other believers convinced me I had already invested too much time and money ($65) to just walk away. I succumbed to the sunk-cost fallacy. You know the rest of the story. Anyone else?

Garth I don't really think we are in disagreement on most of this. It is true I made the decision to do many of the things I did in TWI, including taking "the class" and entering FellowLaborers. At the local level, it was much easier to think for yourself. If you didn't want to do this or that, you simply didn't do it. But, once you became entrenched in a so-called training program (freely avail yourself), however, everything changed. You didn't make most of the decisions, they were made for you, what time you awoke, when you slept, what, when and how much you ate, who you could socialize with, who you could date (and ultimately marry.... this one was implied , not directly ordered.), what disagreements you could vocalize without repercussions, what creative impulses you could act on and so on. If you failed to comply you were out the door. And, they painted a very, VERY dismal picture of what your life would be if you ever left. (a grease spot by midnight) When you're sleep deprived and hungry most of the time, for long periods of time, you begin to lose your desire for confrontation. You just want to do whatever makes the situation more bearable. Instead of looking at the big picture, you look at life and the future from a very narrow perspective. Now, maybe that's not what brainwashing is. I don't know. I do know it's no way to live unless you can delude yourself into believing that compliance is the answer.

I simply don't see how anyone could have manipulated us into doing the insane things we did and accepting such a bizarre lifestyle without somehow modifying our thoughts and behavior. You don't have to call it brainwashing if the term makes you uncomfortable but something happened to us that mere enthusiasm and devotion can't explain.

I wholeheartedly agree. TWI didn't simply fail to teach these skills, they actively and vigorously discouraged them.