Raf

I guess this is where I let folks know that earlier this year we adopted two more: a 1-year-old boy and his 7-year-old brother.

Oh EAGLE! Ok. Hi. Welcome back.

Oldiesman, There's two ways to look at this: as a believer wanting to practice what the Bible teaches, and as an outsider looking for proof that the phenomenon described has any validity to it. I went from the first to the second over a long period of time. As a believer wanting to do what the Bible teaches, I had to admit to myself that I had no reason to believe I was producing a language, or that anyone else was. And producing a language is exactly what the Bible seems to teach (IF you agree with the premise that the Bible does not contradict itself). Once you get away from faith, starting with the belief that the Bible, even if inspired, is not the perfect word of the perfect God, and that it CAN contradict itself, then you leave open the possibility that the phenomenon described by Paul and the phenomenon described by Luke are not the same thing. So Acts gives us languages people understand, and Corinthians gives us "tongues of angels" the "no man understands." Well, which is it? I submit "tongues of angels" and "no man understands" moves us out of the realm of making a testable claim. I also submit that if you are making an untestable claim, I am under no obligation to believe it. But I respect that you DO believe it, and I respect that you may think I am mistaken on every point, regardless of whether you can express that disagreement to MY satisfaction (you owe me no such explanation). All of which is to say I have no argument with you and your practice of SIT. Obviously, you think (as a believer) that I am missing out by dismissing Christianity, and I think (as an unbeliever) that you are wasting your time with worship. But we can be respectful about our RIGHT to disagree on the subject of faith, and I thank you for doing so.

Surprised that one took so long.

The wrecking ball quote is from Stranger than Fiction. Brilliant movie

W

The incredible hulk, but I'll spot you that one

Gilligan's Island. "Human interest stories do not make the front page." (Not a giveaway quote, but obviously one of my favorite). *** "It's my job to protect her. Don't make me angry!"

By the way, WW, I hope you are having a nice day. Today would be a nice day for you to have a nice day. You know what I mean? A nice day

Given my propensity to vanish, I will yield to you on the basis that you WOULD have gotten it. :)

Ok, I'll go. Knock knock knock... Penny. Played by Kaley Cuoco, who is most certainly NOT Margot Robbie (though she is a cutie pie in her own right). They do have the distinction of playing one Harley Quinn. Cuoco in an animated series, which one would predict could flourish in a lockdown environment because the actors don't need to be anywhere near each other.

I tried. So close yet so far away, George. I wasn't pointing you to a particular program as I was to a particular...

Knock knock knock

yes

Thanks for your input and insight, Allan. Obviously we are going to disagree on the big picture, so no need to rehash. My only other thoughts: Zephaniah 3:9 doesn't even remotely hint at S.I.T. Neither does Isaiah 65:8. Like, remotely.

Let's move this along: The Fifth Element. Next: "Look at me, I'm Sandra Dee, lousy with virginity, won't go to bed 'til I'm legally wed, I can't, I'm Sandra Dee."

Acts 2 certainly does refer to xenoglossia or xenolalia (foreign language/foreign speaking). The challenge then is, what is Paul talking about with glossolalia? He doesn't use that exact word, but the exact words he does use correspond to it (glōssais lalein) to the exent that, I think, for our purposes, there's no practical distinction. He's talking about speaking in languages. I'm not really sure what to make of my overall question. Is Paul talking about indecipherable babbling that only God knows the meaning to? And come on, think about it: what would be the POINT of such a thing? Perfect prayer? We don't know what to pray for, so we babble and the right words are supplied by God to articulate what he already knows and we still don't even after having prayed? So God can act on our prayer now even though we don't even know that we prayed it? But it was perfect? That's not a prayer. That's an incantation. THAT MAKES NO BLOODY SENSE! It's like the scene in Aladdin where the genie needs Aladdin to articulate a wish but Aladdin is unconscious (having just passed out while drowning). So the genie lifts Aladdin, whose head drops down, which the genie reads as a yes and grants the wish. It was a cheat. Aladdin never wished to be rescued. The genie did that himself. Same with SIT as intercessory prayer. You're not praying for anything. God (the genie) knew the need before. You did nothing to contribute to his understanding of the situation or your desire for him to intervene. And he took your completely irrelevant action as a plea to intervene because he knew that's what was needed. Hey, if he knew what was needed and was willing to intervene, what did he need your completely unconscious prayer for? Make it make sense.

Why not go with the giveaway quote? "Mool-ti-pass."

That first quote comes from one a movie that grows on me every time I think about it. Brilliant writing. Unless you're Harold, of course.

Apparently the first spinoff of Man About the House was indeed about the Ropers, but it was called "George and Mildred." Joyce DeWitt, Jennilee Harrison and Priscilla Barnes are known mostly for their roles as Jack Tripper's roommates, Janet, Cindy and Teri. Priscilla Barnes later starred in Traxx. You're up!

Not DeNiro. Keep guessing

Two's company, there's a crowd. You are correct

Quick recap for anyone unfamiliar. Part of my deconstruction process involved a hard look at SIT, reaching the conclusion that if TWI was right about what it means Biblically to speak in tongues, then what they taught us to do in PFAL was not real Biblical tongues. I carefully went over all the usages of SIT and tongues in the New Testament to demonstrate that tongues were always languages. Blah blah blah, we all faked it, I concluded. Some of you agreed with me. Some of you beat me to it by years. Some of you disagreed. Life moved on. I'd like to take another run at the topic from a different angle. The careful review of SIT depended very much on the notion that all the writers of the New Testament were in agreement about SIT. Since only two are relevant, let's cut to the chase: What if Paul and Luke (whoever Luke was) disagreed about the meaning of SIT? It would help explain why Paul would say something like "no man understands" while Luke gives us the first instance of SIT, where everyone understands these babbling apostles. Is it possible that Luke meant known human languages, but Paul did not? It would be my position that Paul wrote his doctrine on SIT before the Acts 2 story was made up, which would be the simplest reason he didn't know about exceptions to the "no man understands" rule he laid down without hesitation. It would also make sense for Luke (or whoever concocted the Acts 2 story) to invent a practical reason God would have wanted his people to SIT in the first place, since Paul doesn't really give a coherent reason this "gift" or "manifestation" is of any use. Interested in other thoughts.

Ok, so you have a US comedy that stuck around long enough to wear out its welcome (eight seasons). Its stars are famous primarily because of their roles in this show. Two went on to star in other shows, so it's not like their careers just vanished. But still. They are remembered primarily for this one. One supporting star was famous before this show and is better remembered for his role in the earlier show. He was not an original cast member. He was brought in to replace two actors who went on to star in their own spinoff, which did not do well. The two actors he replaced are primarily remembered for this show. Of the original cast, there is one surviving member who is pretty much known solely for this role. Three title cast members survive. All are women. All are known primarily (if at all) for their role in this series. Only one of the cast members joined the spinoff. Now, once you realize the name of the series, the earlier clues should tell you the name of the spinoff even if you don't remember it.

Well that's a fine "so what?"