waysider

We haven't discussed yet how Wierwille mangled dechomai and lambano to validate speaking in tongues. Do we want to go there?

Wierwille would have told you he taught Catechism to the Pope if he'd thought it would have furthered his agenda.

They're all more than I have in my pockets at the moment.

"Just one example. That shouldn't be so hard." Isn't that we've been saying all along?

I never felt like I was lying about speaking in tongues when I was in The Way. (TIP and prophesy are a whole other issue.) If I told you I believe it's currently available (in the Biblical sense), that would be lying. I don't believe it is. On the other hand, I don't think it can hurt you either, in and of itself. What can hurt you, though, is maintaining unrealistic expectations for its effectiveness. This is one disadvantage I have experienced personally. Too many times I took unreasonable risks with my personal health and safety, thinking the so-called law of believing and speaking in tongues would cover me. I had some bad experiences but, I'm still alive. Other people who tried this approach weren't as fortunate as me. Sometimes a seemingly harmless placebo can kill you if it's the genuine medication you really need.

Man! I feel like I'm trying to make myself believe in Santa Claus again. I guess when you're a kid, you hold out hope as long as you can that the jolly old man is real.

Chock said: "Socrates told Plato at the beginning of their philosophical discussion "if you are I are going to converse together, we must first define our terms". It's interesting that you should mention Plato because he, himself, experienced what we refer to as speaking in tongues, many years before the time of Christ. He, too, attributed it to spiritual intervention, not that it gives any credence to that particular aspect. http://brainblogger.com/2010/02/07/speaking-in-tongues-a-neural-snapshot/

"I think a conversation with a devil spirit is far different than SIT." Put the devil spirit thing on the back-burner for the moment and consider that a conversation requires...drum roll, please....language....and that's the crux of the matter...whatever SIT is, be it good spirits, bad spirits or no spirits, it simply lacks the components that qualify it as "language".

Devil spirits were a handy-dandy default explanation to almost anything that conflicted with Way Theology. Got cancer? Must be devil spirits. Suffering from clinical depression? Must be devil spirits. Unbelievers speaking in tongues? Must be devil spirits. Maybe that subject warrants a whole new thread. .................................................................. "To me, if I can pray to God and get born again, and pray further and simply SIT without any further instruction, then if I become "willing to accept" that somehow my prayers are BS, and God didn't answer them, then how is the prayer in which I became born again any different?" ............................................................. I haven't seen anyone saying your prayers are BS. This thread isn't about your prayers, it's about the validity of speaking in tongues, as a modern practice

It's really a twofold process. 1. The experience would need to be replicated/verified. 2. The possibility of "sleight of hand" would need to be eliminated.

Well, you got trouble, my friends... right here in Greaser City. Well,it starts with a G and that rhymes with Z. And, that stands for .....Gad Zooks!

Oh, I think they can be the same. It's just a matter of how things sound. Like how a garbage man is now called a sanitary engineer. Except, this is like an inverted example.

That's Marketing 101, Ham. Create a problem so you can solve it. Did you ever worry about how many were crucified with Christ before Wierwille told you that you needed to?

False prophet sounds a bit lofty. Maybe charlatan would be a more appropriate word.

Oh, O.K......

How about some music while we're on hold?

I think what he's saying is something along these lines: I give a message in English, which is my native language Someone who only understands Spanish hears me and understands my message as if I had delivered it in Spanish. Is that what you are saying cman? ............................................... It still fails to explain why there is no organized structure to the message.

I think, in a manner of speaking, it's just another way of saying "What goes 'round comes 'round."

A living death....not really on topic, I suppose.

Those TWI knuckleheads wouldn't know compassion if it bit them on the azz.

Cowards die many times before their deaths; The valiant never taste of death but once......Julius Caesar (Wm. Shakespeare)

Experts estimate that half of all the languages in use today will be extinct by the beginning of the next century. One thing won't change, though. Whatever languages remain will serve the same purpose language has always served. They will communicate messages and knowledge and do so in a structured manner..

In The Pentecostal Movement in the Catholic Church, (Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press 1971) E D O'Connor claims several cases of xenoglossia. Sumrall (1993:126) gives an example of a man who spoke in tongues after a sermon. Another man interpreted his message. "When they had finished, a young man walked to the front and spoke in a foreign language to the one who had given the message. The brother answered: 'I'm sorry, sir, but I don't understand any other language.' The man replied: 'But you spoke my language beautifully. I am Persian.' . the brother answered: 'No, it was the spirit who spoke to you. it was God talking to you, not me.' " It's an unverifiable anecdote. "Free vocalization" is a made up term. I'm finding that it causes confusion using it, as I'm not sure whether it is talking about people SIT, people faking it, or a medium talking to his spirit guide Who's confused by it? I submit that if someone has exercised due diligence in reading the contents of this thread, there should be no confusion what the term means.

Sorry, chockfull, that sounds like pretzel logic to my ears.