Raf

If a follower of another religion were going through this many logical contortions and definition expansions to justify the failure of his claim to produce it's promised results, we would all reject the claim without hesitation. Ever hear a Mormon try to explain why his holy book has zero archaeological evidence to back it up? That's what this conversation sounds like.

So I assume you can tell us exactly where this road is, where it led from and to, the names of the streets, the date of the blizzard, etc? I mean, you should be able to document every element of the story except for the fact that you saw the nonexistent poles. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence required to believe it. You'll forgive me if I don't just take your word for it. I mean, Muslims have similar miracle stories, as do ESP mediums, UFO enthusiasts, Bigfoot hunters, etc. What may be evidence to you is merely a claim to anyone else, a claim that requires evidence if you expect anyone to believe it. Plenty of witnesses attest to, well, unbelievable things all the time. We dismiss most without investigation because the claims are so absurd. Nice story, and you don't need to prove it to anyone. Don't get me wrong. But if you want me to BELIEVE it, well...

Awesome.

Tongues are languages. Speaking in tongues is speaking in languages. To think that you can speak in tongues without producing a language is to inject a definition into the Bible instead of allowing it to speak for itself. And that improvised definition would not be necessary if you were demonstrably producing what the Bible promises in the first place. Who are linguists to decide what's a language. Seriously? Who are biologists to decide what a cell is? Who are astronomers to tell what a star is? Could you imagine Acts 2, how the people would have reacted if the apostles produced something other than recognizance human languages? They would have giggled their butts off. And the apostles would have been like, "Who are YOU to say it's not a language?" Like it's everyone else's job to prove it's NOT. News flash: if you're the one claiming it IS genuine, then it's your task to prove it's a language. You should be calling in as many linguists as possible to get as wide a breadth of knowledge as you can to ID the language, not coming up with excuses for why they'll fail before they even start. And for the last time, when you take one position for decades, reconsider and change your mind based on overwhelming evidence, the new position you take is NOT A PRESUPPOSITION. It is the OPPOSITE of a presupposition, and disingenuously calling it a presupposition to discredit it does not make it a presupposition.

Has it occurred to anyone that we wouldn't be trying so desperately to explain why speaking in tongues never produces languages if speaking in tongues actually produced languages?

I think you intended to post that on a different topic.

This is getting tiresome. Make up your mind. You asked me to explain changes. I gave a generic response. It changes in a believer's meeting because you're aware you're in a believer's meeting and you change it. No supernatural explanation required. Produce a language and I'll be forced to modify my post-supposition.

The explanation is that you're making it all up. It's changing because you're changing. You're exposed to different sounds coming from different languages that you encounter in your travels, in the things you see and hear, in the things you read, or in your natural ability to think and juxtapose different letters and combinations in your head. Produce a language and I need to change my post-supposition.

You're free to check here. Don't get me wrong. I just think the nature of your question is such that you'll find the answers you seek elsewhere.

Ok. I'm not overly concerned. Both our points are made. Carry on.

Prop A was very tentatively worded. I don't get how you can call it a blanket statement seeing as it only talks about how things appear.

On what basis do you disagree with proposition A, which makes no doctrinal claims and merely observes and recites a fact?

It only matters when assessing vpw's credibility and integrity as a researcher and representative of God. He failed to meet the standards of scholarship while holding himself up as a scholar (implied by his use of the honorific "Doctor"). And he was dishonest, a quality that conflicts with the notion that he was a man of God. As to the quality of the content, it matters not one whit.

I'll take "Threads that no one wants to see resurrected" for $2,000, Alex.

I really have no desire to rehash the old conversation except to answer MRAP's question and, seriously, suggest that you should take the question elsewhere. Not to protect the integrity of this thread, but because I have nothing new to add.

MRAP, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but seeing as this thread is what it is, and where it is, I'm going to gently recommend you ask your question in one of the SIT threads in the main doctrinal section, where it really seems more at home. My answer is you faked it. You were taught to fake it and you have concocted a slew of excuses for why it doesn't produce what the Bible promises: a known human language. The most obvious answer is that you're not producing languages, but that doesn't square with your faith. From my perspective, I have offered an explanation that perfectly describes our shared experience, though it doesn't fit a bunch of predictably unsubstantiated claims about visitors from West Bubbahump who recognized the language and then went back to West Bubbahump, never to be seen again. A likely story. From a Christian perspective, I think an exploration of what you're all doing is necessary because it doesn't seem to match what the Bible says will happen. From MY perspective, I predict you'll never produce what the Bible says, and I don't see where an unbeliever is obliged to explain anything when I've already offered an explanation that fits the facts. Produce a language and I have some explaining to do. Don't produce a language? Talk among yourselves. Stay right here.

For what it's worth, I'm really restraining myself in terms of pulling the "get back on topic" card, but seeing as this thread was dormant for so long and, I think, there is so little desire to resurrect the SIT thread, I'm just exercising patience. If another mod wants to jump in, I'm good with that.

No. Just excuses. You wouldn't have to think outside the box if SIT delivered on its claims.

Yes, once you verify that it's a language, you have to verify that it was unknown to the speaker. Once you have done both, you've pretty much confirmed the only explanation is supernatural. "Product of the devil"? No, you're not opening a can of worms. The can is empty. Relax. Excuses, excuses, excuses.

Raiders of the Lost Ark I yield to Human w/o Bean

TLC, You're confusing authenticity with sincerity (which, I heard somewhere once, is not a guarantee for truth). The sincerity of your beliefs as they motivate your actions do not validate those actions as authentic. It's real simple: Either you're producing languages or you're not. If you're not, you're not speaking in tongues, period. It may bring you all the "benefits" you predict. It brings you peace. It makes you feel closer to God. Issues you were meditating on might get resolved, "miraculously." Hey, more power to you. But that doesn't mean you spoke in tongues, or that your exercise of this practice had even the slightest thing to do with the outcome you desired. Since it's impossible to tell what would have happened had you NOT spoken in tongues (allegedly), any claim that there was a cause-and-effect relationship is not testable. I have nothing to say about it. I've prayed for things that came to pass. I've prayed for things that did not. If it makes you feel better, go for it. I'm not going to stop you. But if you're not producing a language, you're not speaking in tongues. You can buy something with counterfeit money, but it's still counterfeit money. Your ability to use it for a desired end is dependent on the recipient's inability to tell it from the real thing. Deception on your part is not required, because it's still counterfeit money even if you believe from the bottom of your heart that it's real.

I will say it again: You make no argument that SIT is genuine. There is nothing for me to address. "What difference does it make?" is not my question to answer. It's yours. If it makes you feel good to babble in a corner and pretend it's "perfect prayer" or some such nonsense, be my guest. I'm not going to stop you until you start pushing it as a real thing. You didn't. You made no argument for its authenticity at all. So there is nothing at all for me to address.

The whole notion of God wanting to confound the wise is Biblical justification for the celebration of stupidity. Everytime someone is smart enough to say "Wait a minute. You're peddling nonsense," the Bible gives you a built-in defense. Confounding the wise. Give me a break.

You make no actual argument that SIT is genuine. Not really any issue to discuss there.

I also remember having very strict rules about what you could or could not say. It was a real pain in the neck, and in the end I decided that I did not want to be in the position of deciding who was and was not a Christian.