Raf

My daydreams Selma Hayek Me. Oh all right. Unfaithful Richard Gere Chicago

Hey, what image do you guys see as my avatar? I'm seeing a pic of me, but I shouldn't. What do you see?

A cult is a religion that means it.

P.S. If you believe SIT as practiced today is genuine and Biblical, you are on topic on this thread. Anyone who wants to discuss any aspect of it -- doctrinal, practical, hypothetical, theoretical, anecdotal... you're all on topic. You're on topic. You're on topic. EVERYONE is on topic! And while we're at it, you're on topic if you want to discuss interpretation and prophecy too, seeing as they're all related.

Steve L's thread on Speaking in Tongues is supposed to take certain things for granted, by design. Among those things: 1. The Bible is true. What the Bible says about speaking in tongues is, therefore, true. 2. Speaking in tongues is still possible today. Many people who claim to be doing it now are, in fact, doing it. They are not faking it, and it is not merely "free vocalization" because it IS energized by the Holy Spirit. The implications of taking those two thoughts for granted (and Steve will no doubt correct me if I have misrepresented him) are as follows: A. If you are a Christian who believes that speaking in tongues went out with the apostles, then you can take (1) for granted but you cannot take (2) for granted. Therefore, your objection to the modern practice of SIT is, on that thread, off topic. You are on topic here on this thread. B. If you are a committed Christian who doesn't know whether SIT is available now, believes it might be, but doubts his own experienced based on his understanding of what the Bible promises v. what the results he sees, etc, your doubts and questions are, on that thread, off topic. You are on topic here on this thread. C. If you are an atheist who disbelieves modern SIT and disbelieves the Bible, doubts that are based on the presupposition that all supernatural claims are a bunch of hooey is, on that thread, off topic. And it's kind of off topic on this thread, too. Because it's easy and boring. We get it: You don't believe. I don't believe. Fine. What else is there to say? BUT, if you frame your questions and observations appropriately, you too can be on topic. And that leads me to a CLARIFICATION OF MY POSITION ON SIT. You do not have to be an atheist to doubt SIT, and for me, the two concepts were pretty much unrelated. I continued to be a Christian for YEARS after I came to the conclusion that I was faking it and everyone else probably was, too. My doubts were not based on unbelief; they were based on results and evidence. Simply put, I got honest with my own experience, questioned whether my experience was "universal," found considerable evidence that it was at the very least widespread, realized that there was no verifiable account of anyone producing at any time what the Bible says we will produce every time, and came to the tentative conclusion that it's all being faked. Note: NONE OF THIS ENTAILS DOUBTING THE BIBLE. An analogy: Suppose the Bible explicitly promised that you can walk on water. Someone comes along and teaches you the keys to walking on water. He says all you have to do is get on this boat, and voila! Amazing. Everyone you know is walking on water. It's just amazing! But then one day you compare what you're doing (walking on a boat that is on water, something ANYONE can do that requires no supernatural explanation whatsoever) to what the Bible explicitly promises (YOU can walk ON water!). At some point, you start to say, Hey, guys, what we're doing is not what the Bible says we can do. What we're doing is nothing extraordinary. You don't need to be a believer to do it. Anyone can walk on a boat. It's not what the Bible promised. We've been sold a bill of goods. It doesn't mean you can't walk on water like the Bible says. It only means you haven't been. Presuppositions don't come into play until AFTER this point. If you presuppose the Bible to be true, AND you presuppose that your understanding of the promise is true, then you should believe that there IS a way to walk on water as the Bible promises, just waiting to be discovered, uncovered, unlocked. You can also presuppose the Bible is true BUT come to the conclusion that your understanding of the Bible is not true. In that case, you may WANT to beieve there is a way to walk on water just waiting to be discovered, but you're not 100 percent confident there is one. Or you can presuppose the Bible is not true and, gee, maybe that's why no one can walk on water. "But I am walking on water!" No, you're walking on a boat. "And where's the boat?" On water. "Aha!" Aha, what? You're doing something anyone can do. Why should I believe you're doing something supernatural unless you're producing something that cannot be produced naturally?

Yup

Steve, your post was going just fine until you inappropriately injected me into it at the end. This isn't hard. If you keep discussing me, I become the topic. So stop. And I repeat what I have said all along: I will respect what you deem to be on topic, as long as it is on topic for everyone. I will avoid what is off topic, as long as it is off topic for everyone. "It's on topic for him but not for you" is rude. It just is. So no problem. You want this thread to take for granted that SIT is real. Dandy. I won't question it. But if someone else questions it and you, instead of explaining that they're off topic, engage that discussion, then YOU are declaring their questions to be on topic. You can't have it both ways. Challenging modern SIT is either on topic for everyone or it's off topic for everyone. I point you back to the "Staying on Topic" thread pinned to the top of doctrinal. You may not exclude someone from an on topic conversation because you disagree with his presuppositions (especially in this case, where I reject the notion that my presuppositions play any role in this: at least one poster on GSC remains a committed Christian but agrees with me on modern SIT not being biblical SIT. I AGREE that this is a separate conversation. But when you engage it, you expand the thread topic). All I ask of you is a little consistency.

:) Just a gentle reminder, tis all.

A Fifth of Beethoven Open Sesame Boogie Shoes Disco Inferno Plus a few others that would be giveaways.

This cable reboot of series that originally appeared in the 1980s makes a few alterations. The lead female character is no longer a reporter but a high school student. The lead males are unchanged. In a manner of speaking. When the main characters call each other on their cell-phone-like communication devices, the ring tone is the theme music from the original series.

"Don't talk like that. You'll be alright. We're together now; everything's going to be fine, you'll see." "At least - I got to see you - one last time." "No, No! Please. Please... Please don't leave me... I love you."

Fascinating.

During the Great Depression, a sheet music salesman seeks to escape his dreary life through popular music and a love affair with an innocent school teacher, whose son has a near death experience but comes back to assure everyone that there is indeed an afterlife.

Forrest Gump

According to the Bible, genuine SIT will produce a language unknown to the speaker. There are no documented cases of SIT producing what the Bible says it will produce. If it's happening, it's not documented. Lots of unsubstantiated claims, but people differ regarding the weight of that "evidence." For the purposes of this thread, I would assume them to be true. Outside of this thread, I think they're a bunch of hooey. (And that, folks, is how you answer waysider's question without expanding the topic beyond what you claim to be willing to discuss).

Apparently, waysider, your practical challenge to Steve's doctrinal assertion is fine, as long as I am not the one doing the challenging. Switch out your name for mine and, all other things being equal, it becomes explicitly off topic. It seems you can only be off topic if you're me.

Nothing about this site's rules and practices supports the notion that a discussion can be declared on topic when one poster engages in it but off topic when another poster does. THAT is rude. Note that I am criticizing conduct, not people. I have done nothing but attempt to define and stick to the topic here, then sit back and watch every participant veer from it, including the original poster. That IS an invitation to ANYONE to discuss the issues being discussed (none of which include my presuppositions). I know it bugs you guys that I'm an atheist now, but as long as I'm on topic and sticking to the rules, too bad. I'm as on topic as you are, and I'm sticking to the rules. Your options are to return to topic (FOR EVERYONE) or allow the discussion to proceed (FOR EVERYONE). If you think that's rude, you have a bizarre definition of the word.

My comment was substantive and backed by supporting evidence. Your post is simple namecalling

The point I was trying to make is that interpretation changed or varied depending on the doctrinal position of the person doing the speaking. If your doctrine told you to expect edification, exhortation and comfort (EEC), that's what you produced. If your doctrine told you to expect prayer and praise, that's what you produced. Completely consistent with contemporaneous speech/no supernatural explanation required. Completely inconsistent with the message being directly from God and bypassing the mind of the speaker. I'm not sure whether the Bible makes a stronger argument for EEC or prayer and praise. My sense is prayer and praise has the stronger claim to biblical accuracy.

I have not challenged the existence of God or the reliability of the Bible as a whole on this thread. My opinion about what the Bible actually says about SIT is most certainly on topic, and it is disconcerting that you think you can suggest otherwise. I will not argue about whether the Bible is truth, but I am absolutely entitled to argue that the Bible equates tongues with languages. If you disagree with that, we have a serious problem. Further, as the person who started this thread, your intent regarding what is and is not on topic carries great weight. But "it's on topic for him but not for you" is completely out of line. If I am on topic, consistent with what you choose to address and not to address, I am on topic. This is rude, plain and simple. I submit if you don't want me to discuss the issues you bring up in an open forum, you don't bring them in a forum of which I am a member.

Does the Bible say anything about how to distinguish between speaking by the spirit and free vocalization/extemporaneous speech requiring no supernatural infusion whatsoever but producing identical results? (If it's on topic for everyone else, it's on topic for me, thread subheading or not). Am I the only one amazed that when the Holy Spirit speaks through Mark, he validates Mark's view of how this should work, but when the same Holy Spirit spoke to and through the other guy (equally insistent that he was not faking it), the Holy Spirit validated what the other guy said. It's almost like interpretation being exactly like prophesy in TWI, where no one was faking it, but suddenly becoming prayer and praise when the doctrine changed in CES (whose followers insist they weren't faking it). Because that's amazing. Almost like exactly what you would expect if it was all people speaking extemporaneously.

He's speaking doctrinally. You're saying prove it. He's not interested in proving it. Totally different conversations. By the way, Steve, I see no reason for yo to stay off the threads I've started. Your stated reasons are your business, but there's nothing about "presuppositions" that suggests you should stay off. The topics presume our presuppositions will not agree.

As I said earlier, you guys are talking past each other. Just saying.

Again, if Waysider is on topic with his question, then nothing I wrote is off topic. See how that works?

Steve, if THAT'S the conversation you want to have, I'll be happy yo sit back and watch. But by engaging waysider, you opened the discussion beyond its original scope. I'll respect your original scope now.