Raf

1. I couldn't possibly begin to argue with your experience in terms of what I said, but I can approach it with honest questions. Namely, "Tongues I've heard from my own mouth contain glottal stops, dipthongs, pitch variations that do not match romance language." That may be the case, but were they sounds with which you were not familiar? I speak English and some Spanish, but I am aware of phonemes from some other languages (my go-to is the "ch" in Chanukah) and, being aware of such sounds, it would have been easy for me to incorporate them into a tongue. If you're exposed to a phoneme (whether or not you know that's what it's called) then you can incorporate it, QED. 2. You're welcome.

Picking up from previous threads on this (Questioning Faith) forum: Ok, guys, Uncle. Over the last 24 hours I realized there were a BUNCH of posts addressed to me on a handful of threads, and I've tried to answer a bunch of them publicly and privately. But as I keep reading, I keep seeing points I want to address buried in posts that were lengthy to begin with. I'm not deliberately ignoring points, but you guys had what looks like a full day's head start on me. I'm going to try to exercise a little self control by not addressing eVeRyThInG, but if I skipped a point you made and you want me to address it, please feel free to raise it again and I will be more than happy.

Semi-seriously, if God were all-knowing, or even reasonably intelligent, he would have put the tree of knowledge in Australia. The chance of Adam and Eve being tempted would have been eliminated. The story makes no sense!

This is what we call a "non-sequitur." It is when you connect two concepts as though one proves the other, although one doesn't actually prove the other. Namely: Paul praying privately in tongues DOES NOT "refute the claim" that unless the tongues you speak are understandable by some other person then they aren't real tongues. The claim that speaking in tongues should produce an actual human language is biblically defensible, as I have shown multiple times across multiple threads. In the Bible, tongues ARE languages. They are synonyms. Speaking in languages IS speaking in languages. So if you're not producing a language, you are not speaking in tongues. Paul praying privately DOES NOT NEGATE the fact that he would be producing a language. If Paul said he prayed in tongues privately to God, it follows BY DEFINITION that he prayed to God in a language that he himself did not understand. It's still a language understandable by some other person. So, respectfully, Paul's prayer life does not refute my contention that tongues are languages.

TLC, When you jumped into this conversation (which anyone and everyone is welcome to do), you quoted my previous post. Specifically, you quoted the following: You then went on to cite Romans as a way to establish that God (the Christian God, the God of the Bible) does indeed exist. Never mind that you're using the Bible to prove the Bible (which Waysider accurately pointed out is circular reasoning: it would be like citing the Qu'ran to prove Islam). The real intellectual crime here is that you ripped my original statement from its immediate context. I expect better. Here's the full(er) quote with the preceding line. restored here with emphases added: You see, my statement was about the deist God, not the Christian God. Debunking the Christian God, from my perspective, is boatloads easier than debunking the deist God, because the Christian God makes testable claims that fail. Remember the time Jesus said he would come back before those who heard his voice died? They did, and he didn't. Enter Biblical contortionism to save the day! "Well, he didn't really mean what it looks like he meant. He used air quotes." Remember the time Paul counted himself among those who would be alive when Christ returned? Well, he (Paul) isn't, and he (Jesus) still hasn't. Remember the time God said he flooded the whole earth and saved just one family of 8? Testable claim. Genetic research would reveal a bottleneck. None exists. Because it never happened. Oh, the flood was regional? Then why ask Noah to take 120 years to build an ark when he could have given him six months warning and told him to move to another region? Remember the Exodus? History doesn't. In the USA, we have a story about how we fought for independence from the British. It's an easy story to tell, because it's true. And the more details you seek, the more you find. Which king? George III. What year? 1776. Where? We have precise locations. How does Exodus compare? When did it happen? Well, we're not really sure, historically. Which Pharoah? Funny, the story doesn't actually name the Pharoah. Fine, but SURELY there is evidence of Egypt losing a couple o'million slaves over a shockingly short period of time. Actually, there is no such account in the whole history of Egypt. Well, the Egyptians didn't record that because they were embarrassed. (WTF?) Yeah, the Bible makes all sorts of testable claims about God that fall short once you start looking at them. The deist God? Makes no claims. None. That's why he's impossible to prove or disprove. "It's like trying to catch smoke with your bare hands." That's why you constantly hear Christians (and other theists) arguing, well, if there's no God, how do you explain the universe existing? Why is there something rather than nothing? Those are terrific attempts to get an atheist to acknowledge the possibility of a god, but it's a deist god. I could say tomorrow, hey, you know what? I think I believe in the god of deism. And you will still not be even a little closer to defending the existence of the Christian God. Genesis 1? Testable claims that never happened. Exodus? Testable claims that never happened. So I'm left a little frustrated here, in this thread, because I can see that you did not carefully read even the portion of the post that you cited in order to present a verse in Romans to prove a point that, sorry, it simply doesn't prove. And then, when that's pointed out, you come along and post some drivel about allowing the Bible to be its own language, which, on top of making no rhetorical sense, is not anywhere near the topic of this thread. Come on already.

Exactly. Back to topic...

That's Clark, nice.

You give them eyes but they cannot see. Nor can Superman, through lead. Those stories are FICTION. There was no Egyptian captivity. There was no Exodus. There was no parting of the Red Sea. There was no slaughter of all the firstborn of Egypt. Perseus never killed the Gorgon to defeat the Kraken. We are not on the back of a turtle. These are myths! Citing the signs, miracles and wonders of Exodus, Kings and Chronicles is like citing the Simillarion history of Middle Earth to explain why we never see Hobbit footprints. I show unto you a more excellent way.... it never happened.

Thanks. Let me be more clear: your citation of this verse, in the context you present, makes no sense whatsoever at all even a little. You raise this verse to answer a question about the existence of a deist God. This verse dies not address a deist God. Further, this verse cites a subjective experience, not one that can be independently verified by an outside observer. It is therefore, as far as "proof" is concerned, meaningless. Might as well cite Shirley MacLaine's memories of her past lives as evidence of reincarnation.

Would it have been too hard to quote the verse? The Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are the son's of God. And the burning in the bosom testifies that Mormons are right. In terms of proving anything, this verse not only fails to address (even tangentially) the point I was making, but also fails to prove anything to anyone who doesn't already believe it.

Would it have been too hard to quote the verse?

A couple of quick points. 1. According to the studies we reviewed and posted together, the phonemic inventory of "tongues" matched the speakers' native languages. This was a big deal to me as it fit neatly with the thesis of this coming from our heads and not God giving the utterance. 2. I don't think I ever said SIT was a major linchpin in my atheism. Quite the opposite: I tried to make it very clear that you could be a strong believer and still recognize that what we were doing was not biblical SIT. Atheism did not enter the equation, nor need it.

You know, the more I look at this post, the more I want to just post a two-word response and be done with it. How dare you, man? I spent 40 years as a Christian, 40 years seeking and praying and teaching and studying. For you to come along based on a thread on a message board and question my character? How DARE you? But I really don't want to lose my cool. So let me refer you to the informal logical fallacy known as "No True Scotsman." The "No True Scotsman" fallacy improperly seeks to invalidate the sincerity of a critic's previous experience in a group or belief he now questions or renounces. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/ It goes like this (in context, not using formal formula for logical arguments) A: "I just don't think any sincere person seeking God would fake tongues." B: Presented with an example of a sincere person seeking God who faked tongues. C: "He must not have been sincere." See how easy it is? Your premise can NEVER be refuted because any time it IS refuted, you can claim the person wasn't sincere and support your premise. News flash: Sincere people who once embraced faith can come to reject it, and if you can't come to terms with that reality, then you'd best not engage me in conversation because I will defend my honor. Seriously, fornicate alone with a cactus if you don't think my Christianity was sincere. That is not for you to judge, and for you to call my character into question is deeply unappreciated.

Anyway, back to topic: I question SIT not merely because I realize I faked it, but because it's a testable claim that no one seems willing to test (and when it is tested, it never passes. I'm not saying it fails, because certain folks won't let me, but it only needs to pass, convincingly, ONE TIME to be credible). It's not that hard to follow.

I never said that. YOU said that I was basing my decision on experiences. You said "The question is what experiences did you have that made you think God existed changed." It had nothing to do with experiences. It had to do with reason. I'm not saying others did not use reason. I'm not saying anything about other people at all.

Outsider test: If I came to you tomorrow and said because I believe in the teachings of Buddha, I can do nine magic tricks, would you believe me?

I'm trying not to post across threads on the same topic, but please... if you want ME to believe you don't fake tongues, then get a disinterested third party to authenticate your language. Otherwise, let's agree that we don't agree on this and just address different topics instead.

It is not odd at all that I found the evidence compelling. It has a perfectly natural explanation: I WANTED it to be true, so I talked myself out of the doubts that told me it was false, just like you did. We were literally in a cult that discouraged doubt. Doubt is bad. Doubt gets little kids killed by cars when their mommies aren't looking. Who wouldn't want it to be true? But where's the evidence? Glopping gloppleness is not proof. I agree. The evidence has not changed. It was nonexistent then and is non-existent now. Disagree? Fine. Have a disinterested third party identify the language you produce and I'll change my mind. You are under no obligation to do so, but if you're going to start using expressions like "the evidence is there, it hasn't changed," then you shouldn't balk when asked to produce the evidence. Please note the use of the word "like" in the previous sentence. I know the quote is not exact. Anyway, you can look at my experiences and wonder what about my experiences led to a lack of faith. Or you can look at the Bible and test its claims, really asking yourself some pretty hard questions (like, seriously, you could have put that tree on the other side of the planet, dude! Or, working on Friday night cracked the top 10 commandments but rape and slavery didn't?) It's not about experiences. It's about reason.

Who said anything about it being sudden?

A long, rich, recorded, made up history, in large measure. "Out of Egypt I have called my son" is not a Messianic prophecy in its original setting, but Matthew makes it one... and to see its fulfillment, he concocts a tragedy that never happened (the Slaughter of the Innocents) to get Jesus to flee from his home in Bethlehem to Egypt (even though Luke has Jesus living in Nazareth at the time), just so God can call his son out of Egypt to fulfill the not-prophecy, then he comes back to Israel but instead of going to Judea (where, according to Luke, he did not live) he goes to Nazareth for the first time according to Matthew (where he already lived before according to Luke). Umm. That's not a fulfilled prophecy. And you'll find that most of them are not. And as you examine each prophecy, you will find TONS of similar inconsistencies. Some piddling, some utterly baffling. Seeing the prophecy of Jesus being fulfilled in the Bible is not that different from seeing the prophecy of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone fulfilled in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Fiction has a way of working like that. Yes, I know, different authors. But the principle is the same: a story that never happened is malleable. You can shape it to meet whatever criteria you'd like, including the criteria of fulfilled prophecies. Look at the Left Behind series. It fulfills all those prophecies of the New Testament. The rapture. The antiChrist, the earthquakes, the plagues, the return of Christ. All of them, fulfilled. "Yeah," you'll say, "But Left Behind is a work of fiction!" Exactly. I'm not saying Jesus' existence is fiction. But the fulfilled prophecies? They were written to fulfill the prophecies (many of which are not prophecies at all), not to record history. Do you REALLY think, in the most amazingly astonishingly astounding coincidence of all time, that Pilate gave the people a choice between Jesus and Barabbas, and the people chose Barabbas? Never mind that this was NEVER a custom of Pilate. Put that aside for a second. Imagine the coincidence of Pilate giving the people a choice between Jesus, the Son of the Father, and a man whose NAME is "Jesus, Son of the Father." You CAN make that up! The "evidence" of fulfilled prophecy is not evidence at all.

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.

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.

So did you find it?

Thanks Chock. Sorry for all the times I let my emotions get the best of me.

I did not see this thread until this afternoon and have not been diving into each.... and EEEEVery post, so here's the deal. If you want to argue about whether modern SIT is or is not supernatural, keep it here. If you want to discuss what Biblical SIT should be and whether what you're practicing conforms to it. start a new thread in doctrinal or resurrect an old thread that brought it up already. Either way is fine with me. Just know, whatever stays HERE in Questioning Faith... "unbelief" is an expected part of the conversation. Translation, if you want to talk about this biblically, take it to doctrinal and I promise not to stick my atheist nose in it (at least not without plenty of scripture to support what I'm saying).