WordWolf

Not everyone's going to want to get into your personal journey. Even if they did, it's easy to go from curiosity into what ends up becoming barbed, even if it was never intended. But not everyone will want to get that personal. I never got into you about my own journey, and you never asked why I went into the Summer of 1985 as anti-Christian and openly contemptuous about the Bible (and all "holy" books) and returned from that Summer trying to memorize that self-same Bible. More recently, I'd wondered if I'd done you a disservice by keeping the strangest and most odd things from you, even when they happened under your nose. I concluded that I'd take responsibility for your journey if I thought so, and I certainly respect your right to make your own decisions and draw your own conclusions.

You cannot pass! I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor. The dark fire will not avail you, Flame of Udun! Go back to the shadow. You shall not pass!"

Anchorman Christina Applegate The Sweetest Thing

Benjamin J. Grimm. "The Thing". (AKA, "El Molè.)

Based on what I've seen, the stuff I've seen/done in twi/ in the twi style bears little real resemblance to the Biblical practice. That means I have neither seen nor done the Biblical practice. I am open to the idea that it is still "available", but I'm not going to just run up and embrace the next new thing as actually that. I'm going to give it a long, hard look and see if it can pass for the Biblical thing before forming an INFORMED OPINION. So, you can call me "agnostic" as to whether it CAN be done now. I say the twi-style thing is NOT it. If it's practiced elsewhere in the correct manner, that would be WELCOME NEWS to me-which I would examine very, very closely because the stakes are too high to just leap to another conclusion.

It's embarrassing that this point still has to be made, when even vpw made it one of the most basic ones. The Biblical SIT was unintelligible TO THE SPEAKER. He trusted that God provided an utterance, and God responded by providing an utterance in a language the speaker did not speak. In Acts 2, the Jewish eyewitnesses were rather clear that they understood the meaning of what those Galileans were saying, in a variety of languages, and that they were confused because they didn't think it was perfectly normal for them to have known more than a dozen represented languages, which they were speaking correctly. So, Paul was clear that HE didn't understand tongues when he prayed alone. (Potentially, if someone eavesdropped on his private prayer, they might have understood every word-providing the utterances were provided in a language they knew but Paul did not.) If you don't want Raf to think anyone's attacking him, stop making personal attacks on him. That should improve his mood considerably. Making the thread about him is just another smokescreen. BTW, in case I haven't repeated it enough, I'm a Christian who is now fully persuaded that the "SIT" we were taught is nothing like the Biblical example- but I'd sure like to find the real thing if it's actually out there here and now.

Not phrased precisely that way, no. However, without identifiable languages, both the incidents in Acts 2 (Pentecost) and Acts 10 (household of Cornelius and the first Gentile converts) would be forgotten moments in history where some people prayed and then went their separate ways.

The reason I STILL do the "modern SIT" at times is because it is not 100% useless. Like many other things, it can be used as a focusing aid. If you want to clear your thoughts quickly, you need a focus and some practice. "Modern SIT" fits both criteria. Once you're focused, you can do whatever secular activity you needed focusing for, or engage in whatever prayer activity you needed focusing for. There's examples in the Bible of people doing things like walking, listening to music, and so on, just to get focused the same way. Since then, there have been a number of methods people have used, around the world and down the centuries, all for focusing. Raking a garden, chopping wood, carrying water, gardening, and so on. None of those, in and of themselves, are some sort of spiritual or supernatural activity. But if you are prepping FOR a supernatural activity, one of them might be your tool of choice to use FIRST.

I do, but not in front of me. Which do you need? Both? I can get back to you on this Friday. (Time-constraints are on me until then, and are not on me Fri, AFAIK.)

Christopher Lloyd? John Colicos?

Will try to be caught up on the WB shows as of next Friday. (Netflix can wait and wait.)

Just released to theaters this month? I need a BIT more lag-time to see most movies. Signal me whenever a good movie is on DVD or cable. Really,

It was unusually well-done. It got kudos.

Oh, and "Walking Tall" had the same director.

Billy Jack first appeared in "the Born Losers." The movie title I was looking for was "Billy Jack." Its song was "One TIn Soldier (the Legend of Billy Jack"), "The Born Losers" basically was made to fund "Billy Jack." And when I was taking TKD lessons, the instructor ALWAYS called that kick "the Billy Jack." (It looks cool but I'm not a fan of throwing it because I never felt it was an EFFICIENT kick except in surprising the receiver.)

Judges? (Oh, right, no judges.) That's close enough. It WAS Led Zeppelin, and it was "the Immigrant Song." http://www.public.asu.edu/~mharp/viking_kittens/VikingKitten.htm

If modern SIT produces actual languages because it's produced by a supernatural entity, you're wrong about SIT. If that's the case but some OTHER supernatural entity provides the utterance and not YHWH, then you're not disproven about God, as such. (Maybe the related answers would disprove you, but those would be other issues and technically not this one.

Pending some double-blind studies, I've noticed that twi survivors who leave Christianity later often (but not always) have a certain...vehemence...about Christianity- and I think they have a legitimate point. It could be observer bias, but I expect it's more the combination of the TYPE of emotions allowed in twi and the type of emotions felt once leaving. twi allowed people-only higher-ups but it was allowed- to express anger and outrage. Other emotions seemed forbidden. When someone leaves twi, often there's anger and other emotions that have to be dealt with, preferably soonest- although that depends on the specifics of the exit since not everybody left with anger-Raf and I did not seem to. Then when going further, there's lots of experience with anger and outrage, more than other emotions, to fall back on. So, things might come out that way for a number of reasons. I mean, look at ex-twi'ers (and alleged never-twi'ers) who show up here, find calm posts and calm posters- and immediately pronounce everyone as full of anger. They're used to people bottling up anger and expressing it passive-aggressively because they're not high enough to be allowed to rant and rave. As long as they don't deal with their own issues, they'll look around like that the rest of their lives. (We've seen posters here do that for decades and who are likely to carry that to the grave.) Then again, that's just my thinking. I haven't even done INformal studies on this.

*wild swing* Was this "Amazing Stories" ?

I'm unclear what you're trying to say here. Please rephrase yourself so I can reply accurately. (I was getting ready to reply when I realized what you posted could mean a few different things.)

You were going to say it, or you're saying it? (What are you, new in this country?) :)

Are you at least fans of the viking kittens?

Now, now, Penworks, don't give them any mind..... The screeds with blanket accusations about how the GSC is full of anger are always posted by people posting with lots of emotion, and serve to salve their feelings about why so many people disagree with them. "Oh, you can't take their opinions seriously-they're full of anger!" Then they go off, smug that their worldview is still unchallenged. http://www.aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop1.cgi?sel&TheFoxandtheGrapes2

No. Right era, had sequels, but otherwise no, and there is no titular character-nobody's named "Walking Tall" that I can find. (Although it SHOULD be in the category "Vigilante Film", nobody's put it there.)

It's probably down to irrelevance. We're not even having the same discussion. One discussion is "ARE they the same thing? Let's look at the evidence..." and the other discussion is "SINCE they're the same thing, the evidence doesn't matter..."