ImLikeSoConfused

1 minute ago, Raf said:

Your lack of integrity is on full display, pal. How you could straight up lie about stuff you JUST SAID is astonishing.

Past... Document your language yet? I thought not. Know why? You're faking it. I know it and you know it too. That's why my existence bothers you SO much it's practically the only reason you keep showing up here.

It's ok, though. Honest. When you admit what we all know, that you're faking it, you'll see that it's a relief.

Meantime, to call me dishonest is glaring hypocrisy on your part. I'm done with you. Peace out, troll.

Fine with me.

Just now, Raf said:

If your faith were strong then you would engage me with integrity. You don't. Therefore it's not.

If I were you I would go through at least a six month bible study course so that you could at least have a shot at keeping up with me, Mr. Condused.

What I said about your character was based on a if statement. I said if you really were faking speaking in tongues it shows you have a shady character. But you know you faked it so you know you have a shady character. No honest quality person would do what you said you do then if that wasn't enough then go around and claim everyone else does it too.

2 minutes ago, Raf said:

I'm not the one following you around insulting you, picking fights with you and maligning your character. 

I think the fact that I am such a threat to you demonstrates how flimsy your faith is. Otherwise you would engage me in an honest discussion instead of being a rude little pest whose fear of being wrong about God is as transparent as the phony babbling that comes out of his mouth when he speaks in "tongues."

 

How am I following you around? You make a lot of assumptions about my faith that you just can't back up. My faith is much stronger than yours ever could've been that I know. You have said and done nothing that would make anyone lose faith. You're an atheist great, you should be proud, but these assumptions you make are based on nothing but what you wish were true.

Raf assumes a lot about other people based on his personal experience. He says his existence shakes my faith? lol but this board is biased towards supporting their fallen brother so go ahead guys support him.

Oh I get it so just like you faked speaking in tongues by default everyone else is faking, and just like you experienced cognitive dissonance about God everyone else does. I love your logic. If it happened to raf it must happen to everyone else. Fair enough. I guess I better become an atheist now since I apparently am experiencing some distressing cognitive dissonance about God. Sorry God.

Well whats the answer you guys were part of the way, and have spent way more time researching the bible than I couldve possibly, is SIT possible today or not. Was paul talking to the church even today or just people of his time? If the answer is SIT is impossible then i guess i've been faking this whole time eh.

2 minutes ago, waysider said:

This is begging for a discussion of dispensationalism and chronology. Not an entirely bad subject to discuss but very much out of place in this discussion.

I don't think it is simply because the topic is about SIT. And if paul is not talking to us when he says he wishes we speak in tongues then thats very relevant to this topic clearly. If tongues is something that just isn't possible today that is relevant, and it is why we need to know if paul was talking to just corinth or to the whole body of christ not just then but in its entirety. So if paul was only talking to corinith and not people of today then that would mean SIT is impossible today. So it is very important to bring up that to this current discussion.

3 minutes ago, Raf said:

I love how it being a testable claim is now MY requirement. Do you not see the irony? I'm the only one in this debate taking the Bible at its word while you struggle to make it not say what it clearly says and then blame ME for expecting it to live up to its implications.

It's almost like I'm the believer here and you're the skeptics? You should jump at the opportunity to prove faith in the Word will deliver the promise of the Word.

But you don't believe tgat any more than I do. That's why you have to demonize me and discredit me. Because that makes your babbling a genuine manifestation.

I just asked a simple question.

1 minute ago, Raf said:

I think Paul "was producing a language" because he said he was. Tgat was his claim. Glossa. Language. Not babble. Glossa.

If he meant babble he would have said babble.

Would you like to review the scriptures on glossa again? We've done it a few times. I'm game.

To think that Paul wasn't talking about languages when he wrote I would tgat you all spoke in languages strikes me as odd, at the very least. I don't see how it can be defended reasonably, Biblically, both. Unless you want words to be meaningless as a form of communication, to borrow a phrase.

So when he said he wants us to speak in tongues is he asking us to do something impossible today?

1 minute ago, Raf said:

I am asking for evidence that isnt required in the Bible on SIT. You are correct. BUT, i am asking fir evidence that is the natural consequence of the Biblical claim.

If I had a fever, and you claimed to use the gift of healing to deliver me, and an hour later I still had a fever, and the next day I still had a fever, then you could reasonably that your "healing" didn't work. It wouldn't prove anything other than you were mistaken when you said you healed me.

The Biblical claim on SIT is languages. It doesn't have to "require" a test. It's a testable claim. Why are you so sure the Bible means what it doesn't say (that a glossa is not a glossa)? Why are you so sure that you won't produce a language when the Bible says you will? 

It's not about the "atheist agenda." I could agree with you right now that there is a God, it's Yahweh, who raised Jesus from the dead and who is always holy just and good, and it would not change the fact that the SIT you produce is not a language and therefore not Biblical SIT. 

Of course, it's much easier for you to claim an atheist agenda than it is to admit that you're faking it exactly how I've outlined. It's a non sequitur though. Whether I'm an atheist or WordWolf is a Christian or we switched places tomorrow, you're still babbling nonsense when the Bible says you should be producing a language, and therefore whatever you're doing, however nice it makes you feel, it's not Biblical SIT.

So you think paul was producing a language when he spoke in tongues and everyone in corinth was producing a language as well, and that he wants everyone who speaks in tongues to produce a language? We don't know what pauls tongues sounded like, we don't know what the tongues sounded like on the day of pentecost. We have no way of verifying if what someone is doing today is the same as what was done then. And it also brings the question if the epistles were written to people of today, why would paul say he wishes we would do something that is impossible to do now?

So its not adding up either paul is telling us to do something we can't do or people can still do it and your requirement of it being a testable language is not possible.

4 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

I had thought for a time people who'd never heard SIT would be impressed.  Isn't that why we're trying to get them to TWIG?  To be wowed by what we take for granted?

 . . . what? . . . THAT didn't impress you?  . . . I must have kalyunta'd when I should have lo shunta'd. . . . yeah, THAT's the problem . . .

I don't think SIT is impressive to anyone who doesn't believe it is possible or believe in what the bible says about it. If I am christian who does not speak in tongues but heard about it and believe it has power behind it then I would be impressed by people who can do it. However if I am a person who knows nothing about SIT or doesn't believe it has any relevance then it wouldn't be impressive.

Just now, Raf said:

Mr. Confused:

You seem to think I am incapable of discussing this without going on the attack. You, whose first post directed at me was an assault on my character for which you have not apologized. That's calling hypocrisy right there. And then you constantly divert from the discussion topic, which is questioning SIT, and constantly make it about what you think is wrong with Raf, which, by the way, no one f-ing asked you. 

I know people who work in movie theaters who don't project that much.

Going back to the original topic, you are asking for evidence that isn't required by anyone in the bible on SIT. There is nothing in the bible to indicate that you have to prove you are speaking in a language to know you are speaking in tongues. There is no test at all for any spiritual gifts in the bible. So you are asking for something that the bible does not ask, and is quite unreasonable. But it all goes back to the atheist agenda of sitting back and saying God doesn't exist because theres no proof, and I'd love to know what you would say to the atheist when you were a believer who would question why you believe if there is no proof. I don't believe speaking in tongues has to be a proven language or have the same rules that all languages have. But if thats what you believe thats fine but it doesn't prove SIT is impossible today.

15 minutes ago, Raf said:

If you were actually producing a language, you would agree that it does indeed make a hill of beans of difference. But whatever you need to tell you to comfort yourself of the implications of failing to produce a language is fine by me.

So you think when paul said he will pray with understanding and also with the spirit, by spirit he is saying a language that he doesn't understand yet is a known language? If hes saying he will pray with understanding then it follows that praying in the spirit means praying without understanding whats hes saying. We have only one example of SIT where people could understand what people SIT were saying. But I don't see any verse or the way paul talks about speaking in tongues in the epistles to think that it must be a decode able known language or fit under known language rules.

You really don't seem to be able to have a discussion on this topic without thinking someone is attacking you, yet most of your posts are just attacks on others and you take offense at the tiniest slight which is just a disagreement but no intention to offend you. Lower your defense mechanisms, and a reasonable discussion can be had here, but until you do, you are just going to create a hostile environment where you think everyone is attacking you so you attack a perceived threat that doesn't actually exist.

4 minutes ago, Raf said:

 

P.P.S. I'm not atheist because I was in a cult. I'm atheist because I concluded that the evidence for a god is lacking. It's not because Wictoh Pao Wiewille huwt mah feewings. It's because when I look at god claims, I do not see substantiation that I find compelling. If I were to say the only reason you're still a theist is because a cult damaged your critical thinking skills beyond repair, you would be insulted. So understand, when you say I'm an atheist because a cult hurt me, the only appropriate thing to do afterward is wipe it and flush. Because that's what that comment is. 

Yet the evidence was the same while you were a believer and the same while you became an atheist. The evidence didn't change you did.

Raf I'll just tell ya that not everyone before they speak in tongues is afraid of it. You had a bad experience with SIT which I get but thats just your one subjective experience which you erroneously project to be true for everyone because its true for you. Step outside yourself and ask yourself if it makes sense that just because you experienced something thats true for you that its true for everyone or true at all. There is nothing that I can say or show you to prove that SIT is possible like there is nothing I can say or show you to make you believe in God again. Your mind is clearly made up on both situations. Theres not much discussion that can be had with someone who has their mind made up on something. So I'll leave it at that. But if it is possible for you not to project your experience on to others, and not assume that just because you were faking or your experience with God sucked that God doesn't exist because you were in a cult. Then perhaps a discussion could be had, but your mind is made up so I don't think there can be much progress made one way or another.

20 minutes ago, Raf said:

It's not about experiences. It's about reason.

What makes you think people who do believe in God aren't using the same reasoning skills you are?

1 minute ago, Raf said:

Who said anything about it being sudden?

Well I guess it took some time to be official but I'm sure you knew you didn't believe a lot quicker than you were willing to admit it was true to yourself. Perhaps you could describe that moment where you had the aha moment that God and the bible were just nonsense. Perhaps it was a gradual process I really don't know what goes on in the minds of people who admit to faking tongues then claim that means others were faking as well.

4 minutes ago, Raf said:

Name it, though.

Honestly, from my standpoint, gods and fairies have equal evidence. Not just the Christian God, ALL gods. There's not "more evidence" for the Christian God than there is for Allah. Or fairies. We have an honest disagreement there.

Now, you may get away with the argument that there's more evidence for a "deist" type of God than any other, but that's self-defining. That is, the deist God is defined by his lack of involvement (and therefore his lack of testability). A deist God would have created the universe according to natural laws and then gone fishin. There is simply no way whatsoever to establish that any such God does or does not exist -- and no consequence whatseoever to believing either proposition.

But once you start pinning down particular claims, your God becomes testable. And the more specific you make that test, the easier it is to determine whether your God passes it.

SIT is a language. Ok, let's test it.

Well, it's an unknown language. Ok, but unknown to the speaker doesn't mean unknown to linguists or anyone else on earth.

Well, it IS unknown to anyone else on earth. Ok, so you're saying it's a dead language.

Right! A dead language. Ok, but we actually know a lot about even dead languages.

It's the tongues of angels.

 

 

You know, people make testable claims about their gods and then go into retreat mode whenever people take em up on it.

 

My God's got LOTS of evidence?

Sure he does. Well then, I'm here and looking. Bring me back into the fold.

Well, he doesn't like to be tested.

WELL ISN'T THAT CONVENIENT!?

 

I'll be right here.

 

Well I think when we see the fulfillment of the old testament in the new testament through Jesus Christ that be default is more convincing than fairies or the thors or zeuses. The Jewish people have a long rich and recorded history. So to see the prophecy of jesus being fulfilled in the new testament is something that at least exists and we can dissect that but its something tangible. Unlike fairies etc. Sure there are books with fairies in them but they aren't written about in the same way the old and new testament were written. One is written by people who believe what they wrote the other is by people who don't believe fairies actually exist but trying to tell a story.

14 minutes ago, Raf said:

Constantly being accused of mindlessly repeating jargon, coming from a Christian, strikes me as mildly ironic.

Look, Pascal's Wager is ONE argument. There are only so many counterarguments, and to be expected to come up with something that no one has ever articulated before is not horribly realistic.

If you want an original answer from me, then ask a f-ing original question. Not "what would you say if you came face to face with Jesus?" That's a dumb question to ask someone who thinks Jesus is dead, has been for about 2000 years now, give or take a dozen or two. And it WOULD be like me asking you what you would tell Thor at Valhalla.

You want an answer from my heart? There it is: that's a stupid question, and one that Christians would never think in a billion years to ask of someone who doesn't believe in fairies, leprechauns or Bigfoot.

But isn't there more evidence the christian God exists than fairies of pagan gods? Like if we had to compare every pagan God to the christian God it seems not just based on consensus in the world but on mere practicality more probable. It's why when atheists bring up fairies when we are trying to have a serious discussion about God it seems unreasonable and there has to be a better analogy to God than fairies. It seems there is nothing that can be compared to God but if there is something, fairies can't be a good one.

17 minutes ago, Raf said:

So did you find it?

Yep. It seems you gave up the faith because you no longer found the bible,God compelling. And came to the conclusion there really was no evidence for God. I would give up the faith too if I believed that. Its just amazing the jump you made but its just when someone says they were faking speaking in tongues what else were they faking? Were they faking their faith too? Not claiming you were but its just odd that someone who knew the bible as well as you did and apparently believed it was true, suddenly had a change of heart. For good reasons I'm sure however do you think these reasons would be convincing to other people if not why not?

11 minutes ago, Raf said:

 

 

Why did you doubt at first? Why did you stop for a year?

Think about it. Wouldn't you, of all people, have known if you were faking it? That doubt was not misplaced. That was your brain telling you that you were faking it. And it took time and repetition (what those psychology types like to refer to as conditioning) to convince yourself that it was genuine, and the doubts went away.

Your doubts were right the first time, in my opinion.

If you no longer doubt you're speaking in tongues, that's between you and your God. I don't believe you. I think you faked it then and are faking it now. Nothing personal. I just don't believe anyone who claims they can do real magic, and speaking a language you've never learned is really magic.

Now, it may be that you don't care whether I believe you or not. Fair enough. I'm not asking you to care what I think. I feel the same way about any expression of "if you had done this, you would still be a Christian today" or however you phrased it. It's a polite way of saying you do not believe my turn away from "faith" was based on reason, but on experience. You're entitled to believe that wrong thing. I'm not gonna stop you.

I do suppose you're right, though. If I had magically begun speaking Aztec or Zimbabwean (or whatever languages are spoken by the people represented by the words I just threw out there for effect), I probably WOULD still be a Christian. Because that there would be evidence. I rejected faith because I found the evidence lacking. (Well, absent, to be frank, but I'll go with lacking). You can agree. You can disagree. I can have a beer with you either way.

But if you want me to believe you really genuinely speak in tongues (and I'm not saying you do or you should), then show me the language. Otherwise, you can have no doubt at all that you speak in tongues, and I have no obligation whatsoever to believe you.

It's like Schroedinger's utterance. It's spoken, But is it a language or is it not? As long as no one tests it, either of us can claim it is/isn't.

But come one. You know as well as I do.

That's why you doubted.

And that's why you're still trying to talk yourself into it.

(P.S. You can still be a Christian, and a good one, while acknowledging that out of a hunger and thirst for righteousness, you allowed someone to trick you into thinking something unremarkable was quite remarkable). 

Why did I doubt? Because I always doubted my ability to do it and doing it one time was not long enough to remove that doubt. I stopped for a year because I was dealing with other issues in life and God was not my main focus. Is it unreasonable to doubt something you tried to do in the past but couldn't do and then you do it once but all of those around you who hear it claim you aren't and you already doubted it all your life so of course you just take their word for it.

Lets understand what SIT is. Its speaking a language you don't understand. Even if no one on earth understands it does not mean it is complete garbage. Because the language is spoken to God not other people. Whats odd is you found the evidence to be good enough at one point and did believe it but what changed? Also why do you think you need the bible to believe in God(in your darkness thread you wrote your critiques of the bible and used it as a reason for not believing). Plenty of people believed in God before the bible existed. The question is what experiences did you have that made you think God existed changed. The bible didn't change. God didn't change. You changed is obvious but why. The evidence has always been the same while you were a christian and while you became an atheist.

I've explained my reasoning for doubting SIT. I never believed I could my whole life so doing it out of the blue would not be enough to change a life long belief. But doing it on a daily basis I realized it was real and that I was not faking as you say. I have no reason to lie to you or myself or anyone else about it. Your logic seems to be our first instinct is always right but thats clearly not true because sometimes for instance our first impressions are incorrect etc. Your first instinct seems to have been God is true but you no longer trust that instinct and instead believe he doesn't exist. So whats the truth here. You can't have it both ways.

Theres more to say about this but i'll leave what I wrote for now.

9 hours ago, WordWolf said:

Ok, Staff?

Where should I post my responses to him?   This is "Questioning Faith."   Should someone start a new Doctrinal thread, or something?

We're going "off-topic" for "Questioning Faith" right now, so I don't want to disrespect the system, here.

If you could touch on my questions I'd like to hear an answer. Whether you start the thread or I do let me know.

So werewolf you believe that christians who claim to speak in tongues are doing nothing more than what actors do when they act like they are speaking a language? I guess the question becomes do those actors experience the effects that christians experience when they speak in tongues. For instance when I speak in tongues I get spiritual insights(by this I mean certain questions involving angels or other spiritual questions i have i get insights on whether its an actual thought or image etc its in a form that is understandable to me in my mind that clears up some confusion i have had about a spiritual matter), chills(good relaxing ones), increased peace, my mind feels at rest and calmer than before doing it etc.

There has been a study showing the brains of people who speak in tongues compared to those who meditate, but there hasnt been any studies to show the brains of people who speak free vocalization or any other people who speak in a language that no one understands compared to christians who claim to speak in tongues. That would be helpful to see if theres a difference. Its definitely doubtful that there would be but theres no way to know. Because while some other religions practice free vocalization as you call it, do these people also experience the things I said I do when I do it? What about those who aren't religious like the actors you posted clips of doing it.

When paul for instance said he spoke in tongues more than anyone else, who was he speaking these tongues to? Other people or by himself privately to god? If he did it privately then its possible what the modern speaking in tongue people are doing is still biblical.

Now of course my experience when I speak in tongues is subjective and not all people experience what I experience, but I think theres some reasons to believe that what I am doing is biblical because why would paul wish we would all do it?

20 minutes ago, waysider said:

Well, but you see they DO understand because, immediately following the tongue portion, the same speaker interprets the message in the audiences' language.

 

Here's an example of what it might sound like:

"Lo Shanta La Go ba Tagga taka see tay...Yea, my little children. I am your God and father and I love you dearly."

(spoken with emotional intensity)

 

In the excellor sessions, we practiced on expanding our messages and developing the theatrical nature of the presentation

So you guys actually had some success doing this?

10 minutes ago, waysider said:

In The Way, there was a lot of emphasis put on it being a sign to unbelievers. Scriptural reference, of course, was cited. We had a class called the Intermediate Class that taught us a specific protocol to be followed when performing what were referred to as the three utterance manifestations. (According to Way doctrine, when you become born again you automatically receive an innate ability to speak in tongues, as well as an ability to perform several other spiritual acts...nine, in total. Way doctrine also states that these are not individual gifts, but, rather, the evidence of one gift, which is indwelling holy spirit.)

 

Part of that protocol dictates that when the believer brings forth speaking in tongues in a group setting, the same person is to immediately follow it with an interpretation that is given in the language of the people present. This is supposed to serve as a sign that something spiritual is taking place. In the Intermediate class, we engaged heavily in practice sessions to enhance the theatrics involved. These were called excellor sessions. We practiced diction, speed, fluency, emotional presentation and so on. Then, when the situation presented itself, the message would appear to have spontaneity and enthusiasm. We weren't supposed to pre-plan our messages. This aided in the extemporaneous nature of the event. It was to Wow! people

 

Does this address your question about how it applies to witnessing?

Yes I see but find it hard to believe anyones going to be like oh wow you just spoke something I don't understand let me sign up for the way or let me give my life over to Christ because I didn't understand one thing you said.