socks

Gee, I wonder, yes....could it be....SATAN???!!! Ha! Actually this is bringing up a whole range of discussion that was never done in Way circles, to attempt to understand "what" the SIT is. It's one thing to say it's of spiritual origin, God's ways higher than our ways, etc. I get that. Can't analyze it okay, fine. But I think if a person went even a little down the path of receiving=believing they would have become aware that PFAL was teaching that the unseen spiritual realities they attempted to function within and invoke had effects, results, products, artifacts, stuff that was represented in their physical reality. I don't need to anyalyze something to have a verifiable result to admire, at the least. But SIT as johniam noted was defined as "inspired", "inspirational" and brought forth from and by the "spirit" of the individual. That put it in a different category then something like a miracle of healing, for instance. VPW presented it as an operation of an ability that the individual had that was initiated BY THE INDIVIDUAL and under their own control to manage and "do". Probably all of us, anyone who's ever gotten in front of a group of people to speak and gotten off for just a second, lost their place - has gone into "automatic" mode. I certainly have. It's like sliding over an icy floor in wet sneakers. There's no stopping - and little to no "thought" - It can be funny or down right embarrassing. I know if I get into that mode, to stop, collect myself and look at my notes which I hopefully have. If not, I have a method for pegging myself. But it happens. Even the nature of speech - I don't plan every nuance and action of everything I "say". To speak out loud and be reasonably coherent let alone inspirational isn't that difficult to do - without any planning whatsoever. Rivers of wonderful wonderfulness flows out of my mouth, in abundance. Ask my wife, she'll tell you, happens all the time. To do that in a framework of sounds, "words" and become proficient, even facile at it, isn't that difficult to do either. Soooooooooooo. I'm not completely checked out on the free-speech part of this discussion, but that could be what people have done when they say they "SIT" as noted by others here. Yeah, I would say there is more to this than meets the syllabus, IMO.

I agree, it certainly could ways' and Raf yes, if Acts 2 is factual that's what happened then. The Bible references the "of angels", which could be hyperbole ("...or with the tongues of a 1,000 hummingbirds singing in French") or taken face value. Do angels speak? I would say yes, they do, quite well. But I can't speak for all angels all the time. They might have something different to say about that, they'll have to speak for themselves. The cool part to me is that - if I heard a guy speak in something that sounded like another language, certainly not English and someone else said "That's Chinese!" and they understood what was said and that what they understood was similar to - the "same thing practically speaking" - to what an interpretation was that I and they heard - Then that memory is meaningful in this dyad of 50, the me'sies and yousies of communication. I'm buzzing on that because I recently read this article in an unrelated effort, which i found to be interesting - http://www.acrwebsit...gs.aspx?Id=6421 Since no past event is recoverable in it's natural form, only the remnants, artifacts, effects - and memories - of them can represent them. Some "things" exist measurably in the time continuum of past/present to a greater degree than others. Eyewitness testimony being what it is a memory without measurable physical artifacts is probably going to be of lesser value to a large group outside of that event than to me and anyone immediately involved in it. That's just the way it is. (this is my opinion anyway) And if there were more involved, say a 100 people all with that memory, then it might be more meaningful to others not involved, or could be. Depending. Dunno, this stuff fascinates me but doesn't always move the conversations forward much. Just notin' to what ends, not sure.

My pleasure, glad to be of service. You stated it so savory and succinct. That could probably be used to state the entire platform of the Way - If they say it's okay, it's okay, even if it's not okay for others. If they say it isn't okay, etc. Any deviations, apparent contradictions or conflicts are YOUR problem, not theirs.

They were Asian(s), yes. Although in 50 years they may be Polish, and it will have occured in the north yes, northern Alaska, during what will then seem like a normal event, a heat wave in December. Just kidding. As to it occuring, yes indeed. Y. did. I've found that kind of thing to be very unique however. To it can be asked the question that could asked of any event like that when ascribed to Christian faith - why? why then, why them, what that, why there and also why NOT any/where/time else, other than that. There. I don't know. I don't believe that for a "thing" to occur that is "of God" there has to be world wide impact, it doesn't need to fit any kind of parameters that I would set for it to occur. No one's suggesting that overtly here but just sayin', for my part I don't pretend to understand or grasp the enormity of things that are by the nature of what I understand them to be, outside of my complete comprehension. And stuff.

True.

As in Superman's dopellganger "Bizarro", where what he says or does is the opposite of what Superman would say or do. "This is good!" means "That was bad!"

"unity in essentials; charity in inessentials" That's a keeper.

I re read my spiel and what I meant to say was - valid platform to "disprove" (that) You do have valid platforms to question it, of course, many it seems. None will prove it one way or the other and I can't prove it either. If I had a "tape" and photos and two others chiming in Yeah! Like that! .... that wouldn't prove it happened, or what it meant if it did. And for the most part your proposition of a current test instance and environment would be the only way to do that - but I don't know if that would in fact "prove" an explanation but only validate that "it" happened, that something as described happened. In other words, if I was there during Acts 2 and saw and heard what happened, and it happened as described, I might not take it to be any kind of miraculous or unusual event, and perhaps see it as no more than an oddity, as phenomena. Weird things happen all the time and always have. I might have gone home and told the neighbors, "weirdest thing happened, not sure what it meant or if I believe what this guy said about it at the temple, but it sure was crazy, never seen or heard anything like it before...."

Not at all Raf, none taken. I may differ slightly from others as tp why I'm posting in that I'm not writing to prove or convince you or anyone else. if it were me I could be as skeptical of it as you. A skepticism of that means more than one thing, to me anyway - that it happened at all, that it happened that way. What it actually was or wasn't and if it was, what it meant if it meant anything at all. If it wasn't at all, why would I lie about it happening is whole 'nother thing. If it did happen in some form or another what would others that were there say of the same event. Etc. Etc. There's nothing distasteful about questioning another's word for something. "Policing" it reads kind of dense, I don't think you're positioned to take that stance or kind action. I'm probably not alone in feeling that's not expected from you (or anyone else). In fact, you have no valid platform from which to question what I say - which is kind of why I wanted to chime in, it will stand on it's own, same as what others have posted. You can say it didn't happen, that doesn't prove it didn't. You can say it didn't happen that way or that it wasn't what I thought it was - again, that doesn't change my position or have any affect on what I've stated. I just thought I'd chime in. Thread's paid for, this is all gravy. .

I guess I do want to toss in a few thoughts. Greets! Excellent point. The way you think resonates with me brain cells. Scripture, the Bible in it's currently accepted canon doesn't offer descriptions and instructions, as in 'do this', 'don't do that', what this sounds like or feels like and doesn't describe what all the N.T. era people experienced. It does read "I would ye all spake in tongues", etc. but frankly I never have seen in the Bible a cranked shut done and doner case that all "believers" should speak in tongues the Way that PFAL teaches it. I know all the verses that were taught, I know that and get all of that very well, but it's kinda like a well tossed salad, looks a little different each time it's tossed. :) To me. PFAL actually leveraged that reality (or lack of it) in 2 tiers - one being "biblical research' as a reliable method to understand what the Bible says and means and a second tier informing the teaching, that it was being presented in a doctrinal package that hadn't been 'known' since the 1st century, etc. The "not-known-since part of VPW's PFAL isn't required to act on the idea that research and study of the Bible can yield understanding. If the Bible's the source material that we all use it should be the thing that differentiates and decides, ultimately - not 'special revelations'. Reading through this thread and other comments I'd have to say that I don't think Acts 2 should be the sole qualifier to validate speaking in tongues - validate may not be the right word but that to have a legitimate instance of "speaking in tongues" today it would have to be a known human language, as it was in Acts 2 and unknown to the person speaking it. New Testament epistles of Paul describe a broader range of qualities, some that are personal and when "done" (can't think of the right word for that either) are internal, done in the mind/spirit of the person. I don't think - actually I don't think I ever thought - that the unknown/known language incident described in Acts 2 would be normal or even common. It's a good question though - if, big 2 letter word there - if it's never happened since, then why? If it's for any kind of "sign" that would be a good one I'd think, it seemed to serve the purpose in that record. And for the record, file this under 2nd hand story #23,467, I was in a meeting years ago, probably about 1970, with a group of Asian particpants, where a person spoke in tongues, and it was the native language of that group. It wasn't a completely "modern" dialect of Chinese but it was the dialect spoke by these people's family elders, older generation. I guess they said there were a few words that were slightly different that identified it that way to them. And it was a "YIKES!" moment for them in that meeting, they immediately started speaking to each other about it and in English words to the effect of "did you hear that! He's white! He's speaking Chinese!" that kind of thing. Sorry, no tape, I don't know where the people ended up over the years. A few of us are probably still around Northern Cal that were there. I don't expect anyone to bet their morgtage on that. But you wouldn't lose it if you did.

I speak in tongues. It's somewhat different than what I first experienced in the Way, from PFAL's teaching. It doesn't "sound" the same, if I can put it that way, and it doesn't have a "language sound" the way it was described in PFAL. I consider it private, personal. I talk about it with other Christians and have met those who do, those who don't. The fact that you Raf see it as a false, faked, counterfeit thing doesn't concern me to be honest, not because I don't respect your opinion but rather that I don't consider it my business to be telling you or anyone else that they have to. You've stated your position plainly. It seems clear, to me anyway. I'm glad to see the level of honesty that's here. I think it's better to be honest to ourselves and God and not BS either one, as much as possible. Whatever gets us to being honest and truthful is good. I'm only chiming in here as a side note that I "do" that and I consider it a significant part of my personal prayer life. I wouldn't get into detailed one - to - one on it online, can't think of anything that hasn't been already said to be honest. It is what it is for me.

I do, iPad, ASV. I like touch screen functionality, it's good for certain kinds of stuff. Whiffing around material onscreen is fast 'n' easy. Wanted to add, that I encourage others to read the Bibl. I meet many people who read the latest books and through that read verses of the Bible but don't read the Bible itself much. I recommend starting in the Gospels, though the epistles and then backing up to the Old Testament and then read up again through the N.T.

Thanks, I'll check that out Twinky! OperaBuff, that looks cool. I've seen those but never gotten one. That seems like it would facilitate easier reading. I have trouble with the "black page" as Frank Zappa might have called it - the small print with as many words as possible jammed in. Too hard to read. I had a "good news for modern man" Bible I picked up years ago, soft cover, some kind of woven vinyl or something but it's held up well. It's a larger print and I've used it for years for reading too. I appreciate the software applications that allow me to look at several versions at once, cross reference the Strong's, get some commentary libraries and read things. Online Bible is one I've used the most, it's a free download, although I think they have a complete version you can get on DVD or disk now. Very cool.

A point has been made here in the conversation that bears restating - The Way doctrine taught that the "SIT" could not be counterfeited... We're discussing performances of the "SIT" that were faked... The words seem like they're being used here to state the same result - one that wasn't "real" , as described in PFAL. So a person that "faked" it produced something that could be considered a "counterfeit" - even though the PFAL teaching taught that wasn't possible. Good to note I think although it's not my point - but the idea of a thing that can't be counterfeited is unwieldy at best....? - there are counterfeit paintings of art works, sculpture, books. A spoken language could be counterfeited, fairly easily...if/when the actual words and sounds of the language aren't known as is the case with how SIT was taught. If you don't know what the real thing is supposed to sound like and it can be a sign to the unbeliever and a comfort when interpreted to the believer - who's to say that it's for real or not? And the point there that you've made is valid Raf - the metrics aren't there to validate what was taught in PFAL - while there may be instances that are noted, the overwhelming number of examples have never been validated and won't be if the criteria of "tongues of angels" is used because no one knows what that sounds like. I - think - that VPW meant that if you prayed/believe God for the "real" thing, you couldn't get the "counterfeit" thing, God doesn't "give you" the wrong thing and it couldn't be circumvented by the devil, etc. etc. Ask God for bread, He won't give a box of tacks, that idea. Step out on your ol' believing and claim that bad boy and you won't get snafu'd, you'll be walking big 'n' tall in all power. :B) I get your point Raf - you're saying that there was nothing to receive in this, no SIT at all, and all the effort to do so was nada, zip, not able to deliver SIT as promised. My actual real point though is that I don't see anything wrong or ungodly if I can use that word, with anyone being honest. Better to be honest and go from there than to be dishonest.

Hacking up a lung, not good. I guess it would be okay to point it out - maybe not. "It appears that you may have coughed up something that looks like a lung, to me and I know that doesn't really mean that it's a lung or that you did, I only mean that to me, it does look like that but I don't mean there's anything wrong with it if you did. For you. You may have wanted to do that, and if you did, that's okay. It's okay because if it's okay to you it's okay to me, and that's okay too. And maybe it isn't really a lung maybe it's a cotton candy horsie! Or a big cake! But if you did not intend to cough up that lung and would like some assistance now, I could suggest some. Not because what you did was wrong or bad, or that it might represent a problem for you because I don't want to say that you might have a problem - this is just a friendly and loving observation that if that is a lung, maybe...well - no? It's not a lung? Hmmm, well...okay! Here's a plastic bag just in case it happens again"

I use the Amplified bible a lot for reading. I've got a King James, and several others. The software app's that can load up multiple versions are great. There's several online that are very easy to use. Plus you can make the fonts bigger. I got a page magnifier too, one that I can lay over the pages and read. The Large Print versions are kind of expensive, but I'll probably get one of those one of these days. Easier on the ol' eyes.

Thanks!

Hi Raf - how would you differentiate between these three - TWI, CES/STFI and Pentecostals/non-denominationals? I know what TWI taught/teaches, and am familiar with some of the Pentecostal tradition. I'm fuzzy on CES/STFI details, although I did get an abbreviated hairball from Lynn on it about 20 years ago. What are the differences you see, are there any? Just curious.

I was talking to a friend recently and recounted an incident that involves what I consider an encounter with an Angel. He gave a friendly "hmpfff!" and politely disagreed. He said, naw, that was just a guy that was there, I probably didn't see him walk up. I described the circumstances and again he politely refuted that. He's not particularly Christian or anything else that I know of but he's a good man, as good goes. In our conversation it seemed like a place to start talking to him about salvation through Christ. "Grace", and what it might mean to people like us. I didn't argue with him. Many people will take that story and others like it and apply other beliefs and possibilities to them that include the possibility that the impossible can happen. Not him. He just didn't see it. No way. Nice story but no angels. Which was fine. He asked me more questions about it though and after a bit he just gave it some thought. And he finally just said well, yeah. Who knows? This particular story involved our whole family and that intrigued him after he gave it some thought. I told him yeah, my kids could tell you their perception of it and the part of it that is "impossible" is seen from their perspective as well as mine. Probably remembered differently - we're different people. But it all covers a lot of the same ground. I'm sure it didn't sink in much further than that but I'm also sure he's given it more thought. Whether he accepts that or not doesn't interest me but what does is that he would consider the possibility of a Kingdom of heaven and earth that is more than the earth and the sky we see, that is God's Kingdom of which we are a part. So we'll see. But I have had these things happen as recently as this year where I can't explain them and really don't try. They are what they are. People ask me why, why me, why then, what that? I don't know, I really don't, other than the personal impact it had on me and those around me. Why not others and other circumstances, it's not like there's not plenty of need around. I don't know and can't pretend to explain it other than it would seem to fit the description of someone, somethings that can appear and disappear in front of us, and come and go with very little effort and who help with a very focused effort and intensity - as has been described here in your stories. I do believe also that these kinds of things happen much more than we are clearly aware of them and that it reinforces the order and nature of our world, that the earth is "ours" but not entirely ours alone.

Sure. Grace in the bible, "charis" - a noun, feminine-kindness, favor, goodness extended, granting something, to someone or something's benefit. Consider that life grows under favorable conditions and flourishes when it gets what it needs. Life certainly responds to adversity, conflict, tension. Not always in bad ways. Eating the right food sustains and builds our bodies. Exercise makes them fluid, strong, resilient. Using something, be it a muscle or a brain cell requires effort, some ignition. I think it's reasonable to accept that for life to flourish there has to be kindness extended to it - if a child isn't fed it will die. An infant won't be able to get it's own food or it's own clothes. Some wouldn't call that "kindness" - but if you remove the mother and father's urge to care for the child and no one else does, it won't make it. We might call that "love" or whatever but the desire to care for someone else and give them what they need when they can only consume resources and not contribute resources back (for years) would fall into that category. It might feel natural and expected but without it we won't survive, right outta the gate. In order to grow up and become a "contributing member of society" we need a lot of charis to come our way, kindness, favor extended to us when we really don't have any way of earning it or deserving it. Jesus spoke about children in this way, and faith towards God. How to do something for a child is - well, a good thing to do. I see these kinds of realities present in those illustrations. And beyond that life of all kinds responds when the conditions are productive - and also responds to conditions that aren't and adapts - if it can. But if I throw a fish out of the river onto the bank and do it a 1000 times to a 1000 fish, none of them are going to get up and flip me off and walk away shouting "Cut it OUT MAN!!"....They're going to die. Adaptation isn't as easy as a Disney movie. It's can be a painful process, as we all know. Anyway - just pondering the nature of how things flow when they flow well. Someone wants to get over into my lane this morning, big truck - he was going to get screwed if he didn't get over, wasn't going to make the turn he needed to and would probably have had to go all the way around a good mile or so to get back to where he could get on the freeway - I slowed down, flashed my lights and he bopped right over - high sign! - yae! dude, yeah! and he was on his way. Grace. Or screw you haaahahaha!! and speed up and force him off the lane. No skin off my wheels. Good for him though. Just my thoughts....life isn't a lay up every time we try to do something, can't be. But it goes pretty nicely when we get a few of those mixed in with the bangs and bumps. Anyhoo.

Genetics + lifestyle + environment = quality of life. The human body has an expiration date, like it or not. Prevention and maintenance improves, maximizes. Intervention and change - Christianity is all about that. VPW died young, that's a fact. It's not a surprise though - in his 50's he inferred that he was basically healthy and robust. He excused the smoking like all smokers do - "I only smoke a few puffs off a cigarette and then put it out". Yeah, right. Sure, makes it okay. His diet - that he didn't eat a lot at any one time. Or anything really bad for you in quantity. Those things all sound GREAT when you're relatively young and even GREATER when you're healthy. Meanwhile the clock is ticking. Pile it in and on. Genetics + lifestyle + environment = quality of life.

That is really the essence of it, Twinky! Life has to be more than believing = receiving when believing is defined as "a verb" and "action". We do in fact live major portions of our lives without thinking or "believing" at all. If believing was always required we'd fail constantly. Believing was often defined in the Way's doctrine as "not thinking" about something, but simply accepting and trusting, an almost mindless or thoughtless acting out and upon one's own convictions....like the example of sitting on a chair and not thinking if the chair will hold you up, you just sit and the chair holds you up. Or standing up, you don't think about if your legs will hold up up if you believe they can, you just stand on them. Or going into your bank account to take money out that you know you have - you just withdraw it. But - This principle falls apart if I compare an actual non-doubting acceptance and a resulting action based on that acceptance where I have only complete trust driving my action - . Like backing up and sitting down on a chair - that isn't there....And falling on my butt. We've all done that kind of thing - stepped where there's no step thinking there was - we're not looking, we have NO DOUBT in our minds that the chair or step is there - in fact we don't really think about the chair or step at all we just sit or step - according to the principle we should receive the result of our believing action - and those kinds of examples are probably the easiest and best ways to understand a state of mind where there is NO DOUBT, ONLY BELIEVING - and yet when we act upon that believing we don't receive what we believed for (expected, trusted in) - ever. We fall on our butts - we don't sit on thin air, a chair doesn't materialize. I believe in the power of prayer, of God's power, I believe in miracles and the deliverance, God's grace and mercy, and that Jesus Christ is living and real to all those who come to Him in believing faith. There are times when people tell of the impossible happening - but it's never bang bang-thankyouma'am in the way that the Way's teaching of the principle would indicate. People pray, join together, God's promises of grace and mercy intervene. There's also the factor of "grace" that has an affect on life. I've pondered that "grace" is a far more intrinsic quality of the nature of life than I've limited it to in the past.

Thank you all very much - Kit for remembering! And everyone for the thoughts. Greatly appreaciated! And I will only be 50 once, so this is a special year. (did that sound believable, about the 50??? )

TWI's music - I'm probably the biggest cupcake you'll find although I can be somewhat uh blunt at times too. But I respect effort. It's always good to remember how much work it takes to do anything well and that what I see another do may be their best, their most and yet not be as accomplished as someone else. I don't have to like it but I can be gracious in my treatment of others. I need to remember that, more often. Humility defines greatness, IMO. I'm sure it's in the Bible too, if not I can probably fix something up that would sound about like it. But I see our own humility towards ourselves, each other and our Creator that allows us to be what we are, whatever that is. Humility allows us to make room for others and for more, knowing that we can always learn, grow, keep trying. If we're a-holes at heart, it will show sooner or later. We can be great and recognize that too. Kids have no problem celebrating their own wonderfulness. It takes age to make us ashamed of what God's made us and allows us to be. Maybe it's because we get so afraid of losing what we have that we guard it greedily, manage how we share it and are scared to really give it away for fear we'll never have more. So we puff it up and memorialize it. "LOOK AT THE GREAT ME". When I see the Wayfers and their dippidy doo dah music I groan, I really skarf up a hocknberry. I admit it, I do. But - it's not the music really, it's the manufactured greatness being displayed. It's so phoney it's funny. What's that - hate the sin, love the sinner? Hate the crapola muza, love the - well, love the sound of it stopping . And then knowing those people might be doing something worthwhile and fun. Later. When not doing that. The music noise.

That's him. Great guy, talented. You just have to find things that are meaningful to you now and enjoy them. It can be old music, new music, no music, something else. The key is to know yourself and how to avoid drilling into a funk that's self sustaining. :) Music can help do both. Some of us need different kinds of influences. Look at someone like James Taylor - I have no doubt he can create a pretty gray day around himself anytime of the day or night and stay there. He's talked about that. It's important to learn how to work with ourselves and use resources that help not hurt. There's a sweetness to sadness at times, like a whiff of yesterdays remembered. A little bit goes a long way. I think of it as the nature of existence, of how we experience life and time. We are only fulfilled in the continuous flow forward that's fed from the past. Like rivers, that always look the same each time we enjoy them but in fact each time never have the same water in them, ever. Music's a good one. Enjoy.