Raf

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. Confused.

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."

I tried to politely answer his questions, publicly and privately, only to have him distort what I've been trying to communicate using straw man arguments and condescending, holier than thou pronouncements. Dude, you fake tongues as surely as I did. I'm wrong? Fine. Document the language you are producing or STFU. No excuses. Shove your but but buts up yours. You want me to be impressed with your little magic trick: do something I can't. Yeah, I thought not. You know why I think you're faking it? Because you can't produce a language. Not because I games it. BUT because you know damn well you're faking it too. That's why you feel the obsessive need to disparage my character. Because my existence shakes your faith. Pardon me while I search for my give-a-damn.

This is not an honest dialogue, Mr. Confused. You're misrepresenting me, either maliciously or out of profound ignorance and lack of understanding of basic English. I said nothing you allege, and frankly I'm a little sick of trying to explain simple sht to you in plain English only to have you distort it.

This thread continues "Seeing the Dark," but I wanted to kick it off as something new rather than direct new questions to an old thread. A recent post stated that the evidence for Christianity and for atheism hasn't changed, so I must have. I'm paraphrasing. Now, this is of course true. BUT it's also silly. It assumes a static recipient of information who is unable to receive new information or reconsider previously held positions. It's almost like saying, Joe was not a doctor when he was 20. When he was 40, he was a brain surgeon. The information about human anatomy didn't change, so Joe must have. I mean, yeah. He got educated and is now a doctor. I was indoctrinated into Christianity from birth, first by a sincere Jehovah's Witness couple, then by an evangelical friend, then by TWI, then by an offshoot, and finally by a mainstream evangelical church. Not once did any of these folks seriously question the existence of God, and never did I. I doubted evolution no matter how much I learned about it. I believed Genesis and Exodus were history, and that gap theory explained why the earth was so much older than a Biblical calculation would allow. But nobody's perfect, and we all hold views and opinions that conflict with each other. You can smoke as if you're invincible, even though you know how bad it is for you. You may believe in Adam and Eve even though you know enough about science to know the human race was never down to two people. You may believe Exodus really happened and dismiss the fact that the,Egyptian civilization failed to record any of it. The discomfort you feel is called cognitive dissonance. You can deal with it (usually by compartmentalizing the conflicting beliefs) or you can confront it. What Changed Raf? That's easy. In the summer of 2012, after a long slow process of questioning a little bit here and a little bit there, I decided to confront my cognitive dissonance, finally realizing that everything, EVERYTHING made more sense if you remove a God from the equation. To be continued. [This thread was originally titled "What changed Raf" before it was correctly pointed out that one person's journey is not necessarily a proper thread topic].

I stand corrected.

To be clear, as someone who does not believe the Bible and doesn't think this stunt is possible, if you were to SIT and produce a language you had not previously learned, the only problem I would have with the word "impressed" is that it would be a PROFOUND understatement. Free vocalization doesn't impress me. Likewise, chewing gum doesn't impress me. I mean, nothing that anyone can do impresses me.

So. For the curious among us. This thread actually IS about me and my change of heart. So I'd call it fair game. Just sayin.

Big phony.

Yes yes, but there's common courtesy. You don't really want me venturing into every thread in doctrinal and saying "you know this was all made up by iron age goat herders who didn't know where the sun goes at night, don't you?" I mean, even I would get bored. Plus it's rude.

Plenty of people believe the Bible is true but modern SIT is not. I am not among them, so it would be dishonest of me to weigh in, except in trying to see what the Bible says on an intellectual level. I'm not averse to that. BUT at that point we're no longer questioning faith and it's a purely doctrinal question. An atheist view, I've found, is not welcome in such discussions.

If I'm right about SIT AND Christianity is true, then Christians need to decide the consequences on their understanding of scripture. I've already outlined three possibilities: I'm right, SIT is not available. I'm right, SIT IS available but what we did ain't it. I'm wrong but no one's proved it. I'm not asking you to join me in believing the Bible is not true. The way I see it, that leaves you with three choices. The fourth, in my opinion, is to redefine Biblical SIT. You see how much patience I have with that.

If I'm right, then you need to rethink what Paul meant. If I'm right. Why are you skipping to that part? Why not prove I'm wrong?

Assuming the Bible to be true, no. Maybe he wasn't talking to you. Maybe he was, but you're so enthralled with the counterfeit that you stopped searching for the genuine. Or maybe you're really producing languages but you're so afraid the atheist is right that you won't seek to prove it even though it's a clear promise in the Word.

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 that 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 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.

No, Dr. Carson, the point I was making is that it's a testable claim. Get intellectually honest: you knew that and you're just trolling.

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.

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.

If it walks like free vocalizations and talks like free vocalizations, odds are, it's free vocalization. You can say it's a duck, but it's not quacking, bro!

Actually, you would know because you produce a language. Just like you know you've healed someone because they're healed. Just like you know you've moved the mountain because the mountains not in the same place anymore. Stop trying to make an objective testable statement into something that is subjective and untestable. It is intellectually dishonest.

"there is a change that occurs within the mind that allows for a new perspective on how 'reality' can be known and defined." AND THEY WONDER HOW PEOPLE CAN FOOL THEMSELVES INTO THINKING SOMETHING IS GENUINE WHEN THEY'RE FAKING IT!

Every relevant biblical reference to glossa is language. I never said the speaker understands it any time. I never said the heater understands it every time. But it is a known language every time. It's not computer code. It's not COBOL. It's not Klingon. It's a language, glossa, as Paul would have used and understood the term. So his inability to discern the language he spoke didn't suddenly make it not a language. Honestly, if it's just babble, then how is it a manifestation of the spirit? That would be like passing gas is a manifestation of the spirit, because I said so. Never mind that anyone can do it (though I confess, it's harder to fake than SIT). Now, if you told me it smells like citrus, that would be a manifestation of the spirit. But then you would have to prove it. I'm not creating a hostile environment where everyone's attacking me. You're doing that with your amateur and unwelcome psychoanalysis. I'm not the one raising defense mechanisms here. That would be those who keep coming up with excuse after excuse after excuse as to why you're not producing what the Bible promises when it comes to SIT. If you do, I will accept that evidence. But you won't even TRY. You'll convince yourself there's no way to test the claim. But there is. And you know there is. So stop projecting your defensiveness onto me and stick to the topic of discussion rather than the participants.

You'd be surprised if anyone thought speaking in languages produces languages. Listen to yourself. You have to know that's not true, TLC.

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.