Raf

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).

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).

I'm trying SO hard to keep up after last November's crossover.

When is the cheat threshold again? Three days? It's only been 1.5, for those keeping track.

My guess was Gene Wilder, and I was evidently mistaken.

I'm thinking my wildest guess would be going too far.

Wild guess? Or maybe not so wild. Or maybe I should go MORE than wild?

Indiana Jones Han Solo

Linus Larabee

I don't recall the others, but yes, Gladiator was one. Crash was another.

I think the writers of the Bible came up with the idea of a wise God who ultimately becomes an all-wise God, a smart God who ultimately becomes an all-knowing God, a powerful God who ultimately becomes an Almighty God. The implications of a God THAT wise, powerful, mighty, etc. were not considered. God knows everything. The utter impracticality of such a thing is never addressed because these men were mythmakers and storytellers, not philosophers. Nothing wrong with not being a philosopher. It's just, when you tread on a theme in which you are not an expert, the experts in that field get to weigh in. And it doesn't take an expert to realize that a God who knows everything everything everything also knows what WOULD have happened if contingencies had worked out differently. And every day, 6 billion people make 100 decisions a day, and God knows what would have happened if we had decided differently. That's 600 billion decisions and, bare minimum, 600 billion alternative decisions, a DAY. Next day, 600 billion more decisions. And each of those measured against the actuality of the 600 billion decisions made the day before AND the 600 billion decisions that could have been made but were not. Plus the 600 billion decisions that could have been made today. I'm not even going to dare do that math, but quite clearly, the number of contingencies that God would need to know to keep track of "this happened and that happened and this is going to happen and this is what would have happened if you had decided to do that instead..." It gets unwieldy. Granted, I don't have infinite knowledge, but for real. WHY? You don't have to give this infinite thought. Just think a little bit. A little.

My comment on this would be inappropriate in this forum. So I posted on Picking Up Threads in Questioning Faith.

Picking up from "What Does God Know?" I'll keep this brief: As someone who looked at this intently and came to the conclusion that the Bible depicts a God who absolutely knows the future as well as the past, a lot of this ends up making a LOT more sense when you consider that it was all made up, gradually, by people who had not really thought it all through.

Yes, sir. I was teasing.

I finished the book a couple of weeks ago, and I have to say, it really is very good. One of the questions I get asked most is, how did you get suckered into joining a cult? And I think Charlene answers that question by showing how incremental the process is. I found the story to be a deeply personal one (unlike The Cult That Snapped, which was "about the Way," Undertow is about the author). Beautifully done, Charlene. Congrats!

Shucks, you left out Friends and Party of Five.

Crispin Glover Charlie's Angels Drew Barrymore

Depends on what kind of box. If it's one of those boxes where a ballerina twirls around after you spin that little knob in the back, it's probably easy. Mike Post...?

Let's see... was it Silence of the Lambs? lol. Yes, Silence of the Lambs had the distinction of being released so early in the year that it was available on home video before it was nominated and, naturally, before it won. Now, AFTER Silence of the Lambs, there were at least three more Best Picture winners that were released ON DVD before their respective Oscar nights. Name any.

DVD? Not sure. If you mean home video, I can tell you the answer, but I would require a quid pro quo.

Name the actor. Branch Rickey Woodrow Dolarhyde Norman Spencer Alexei Vostrikov

Please don't list two movies on the same line. Let the next person jump to the second movie to another actor!

When you asked you out, did you say yes right away, or did you think about it? Did you pick you up, or did you meet you somewhere? How soon before you knew there was real chemistry between you and you? Sorry. You said Klute was a fairly famous movie, so I just wanted to let you know you were dating yourself.

I MIGHT have gotten Chelsea THAYER Wayne. Jane Fonda

Charlie Sheen, 2.5 men? And then after he left, it was 2 men?