waysider

Is this "opposite day"?

It's the language of Jim Morrison and The Doors (Soft Parade/When The Music's Over)

Oh, Freud would have had a holiday with this.

Something else that bounced around here a couple years ago is the idea that maybe the record is saying these guys spoke their native tongues as usual but people from other countries understood them. In other words, I speak in English, my native language, but somebody from Germany, who would normally only understand German, somehow understands me.

Maybe what has changed is the interpretation and understanding of whatever it was that was taking place all those years ago.

John, have you ever investigated trinitarian doctrine, explored it's Biblical roots or historic foundations outside of Way and/or offshoot materials? Reading JCNG does not make you any more of an authority on the subject than reading the Sunday funnies would make you an authority on journalism.

It might be interesting to see someone do a brainwave test or something that demonstrates SIT, both silently and outloud. I suspect they would look the same. I think someone did a study once that determined when you speak silently, your vocalization physiology (tongue, mouth,etc.) moves ever so slightly even though you think it doesn't.

Why wait?............ Then again....

Just because you didn't "feel" isolated doesn't mean you weren't, John. It's often the long term effect it has on a person that is so damaging, rather than what the person "feels" like at the moment.

You can only look at a lump of coal for just so long before you stop thinking about what it is and start philosophising about what it might have been in the past or might become in the future.

By golly! I think you're on to something!

I recalled that incident for my grand daughter Clara-Belle Jean . (That's short for Helen) She said, "Golly, Grandpa Waysider, you kids sure were simple". (I had no idea young'uns still say "Golly".)

I must have been about six or seven years old. I overheard the grown-ups having a conversation about diamonds. I suppose someone in the family must have recently become engaged. Well, one of them said that a diamond was nothing but a piece of coal that got real hot while it was being squeezed. (I think there might have been some sort of double entendre that escaped my youthful mind.) I didn't know much about diamonds but, I knew they were worth a lot of money and it sure wouldn't hurt our family to have a bit more. So, I ran and got Donny, the neighbor kid who lived behind us across the alley. We made a beeline for the coal cellar and scooped up the biggest lump we could find. We put it in some kind of cloth, maybe a bandana, and tied it up real good and tight with some twine we found in the alley. Then, we hung it from a low hanging branch on the big maple tree out in front of the house, taking care to make sure it had plenty of hot August sunlight beating on it. We left it that way for about a month, until the suspense got the better of us. (Okay, it was probably just a day or two.) We held our breath, tore open that package and, lo and behold, the lump of coal we had wrapped so excitedly was still nothing more than a lump of coal. Imagine that.

huh?

If you examine the accounts of what is said to have happened in the first century and compare them to what we did in The Way, they don't appear to be the same thing. Same name or terminology, maybe, but not the same thing.

1. SIT....see current thread 2. study the word.....as defined by Way Theology 3. fellowship w/ likeminded believers.....self imposed isolation 4. abs...provide financial support for a corrupt organization (TWI) 5. witness...recruit unwitting converts into the MLM structured fold (Pg#2/W&U...."The basic reason we witness is to help people into the classes on Power for Abundant Living...)

My family never ostracized me.

Well, that's proof enough for me.

Something that occurred to me about excellor sessions. We, as instructors, told people to "believe" for God to meet whatever criteria was being requested such as,"Believe God for every sentence to start with the next letter of the alphabet." ....etc. It happened at session #12, too. "You move your lips, tongue, etc. and 'believe' God for the words." (I think we've been down that "believing" road enough times to skip any extensive rehashing of it,yes?) Clearly, this puts the onus on the speaker to provide sufficient "believing" for God to act on their behalf. Someone has repetitive messages, limited vocabulary?....Must be that they lack "believing" to receive. <_<

It says the audience heard them speak in their languages and understood them. I think that rules out the possibility of "free vocalization". (as defined by Rev. Vern)

http://www.skepdic.com/glossol.html Nicholas Spanos notes: "Typically, the interpretation supports the central tenets of the religious community." ..................................... http://andrewnewberg.com/pdfs/2006/TonguesPaper.pdf scientific look at the cerebral activity involved

I think more people are drawn to About The Way than Doctrinal, especially new arrivals. Maybe you could do an initial post there and then do a redirect.

Should I speak in tongues? Should I not speak in tongues? Consider this: Jesus never spoke in tongues....He still managed to do okay for himself. :)

Well, we were "the best", now, weren't we?

I think that's a fair question.....but probably better suited for the doctrinal forum, in another thread. As it relates to this thread, I think that question is part of what puts people off when considering the authenticity of speaking in tongues. After all, we were taught, in a round about way, that speaking in tongues IS the proof.