Raf

I'll be moving off topic posts to another thread when I get a chance. Steve, if you'd like to ID which posts are on topic and which are not, it would give me something to go on. Thanks.

My argument has always included a simple way to prove me wrong: produce a language. My premise is valid because it is falsifiable. The argument I'm responding to is the exact opposite of valid. It retreats and moves the goalposts whenever challenged, to the end that some have convinced themselves no one will ever identify the language in SIT, ever (unless, apparently, they are visiting from halfway around the world and returning, never to be seen or heard from again. Then it can be detected. But that's a digression). Talk about an invalid argument!

My comments are responding to yours, so if I'm off topic, I apologize. Of course, when you subtitle a thread that specifically excludes a poster, anything that poster has to say (especially if it disagrees with you) is automatically off topic anyway, isn't it. Two points I believe to be on topic: 1. The studies that have been done demonstrate (not prove) that SIT as practiced does not produce anything that requires a supernatural explanation. That is as close to demonstrating that it's not a function of the spirit as you can get in science. Earthquakes and storms are not God's wrath. Science does not prove this, but it demonstrates it by shoeing the actual causes of earthquakes and storms. Similarly, SIT requires no supernatural explanation until and unless you can demonstrate it produces something free vocalization does not. You can't, because it doesn't. You can presuppose it's supernaturally powered. More power to you. Second, it is a false premise that my conclusion is based on presupposition. I reached this conclusion about SIT years before I rejected the premise of the Bible, and honest believers can reach the same conclusion if they follow what the Bible says to its logical conclusion. My argument had NEVER presupposed the nonexistent of the supernatural. That notion is a defensive posture designed to dismiss my argument without giving it due consideration. You're entitled to it, but not at the expense of misrepresenting me. If I am wrong about God and the Bible, SIT is STILL a bunch of hooey based on the fact that it does not produce what the Bible says it should: languages.

The definition is circular. According to it, if I fool you into free vocalizations, calling it speaking in tongues, and you do it, it's genuine SIT. Then you, in all sincerity, share my instruction in how to produce free vocalizations, believing it to be SIT, and others follow your instruction, sincerely believing they're doing the real thing. By your definition, they are. But they're not. That's why it's flawed. You call my position "presuppositional." I reject that characterization. The word better suits your position, which presupposes a supernatural element without evidence that requires a supernatural explanation. My position is strictly evidence based: produce a language, and you establish something that requires a supernatural explanation. Without it, a natural explanation suffices. "Can you cite a single historical or scientific study that conclusively demonstrates speaking in tongues is NOT a function of spirit?" That's a burden of proof fallacy at work. You are making an affirmative claim. The burden is on you to prove it, not on doubters to disprove it. Why should I have to disprove something you've never demonstrated? Free vocalization produces the exact same result you claim SIT produces, no supernatural element required. If you assert SIT produces something extra, you have to prove it. You cannot name a thread "everyone gets to participate in this except that guy" and bind that guy to it. I was prepared to accept the premise of this thread as a discussion of what the Bible teaches, about which I submit I am no slouch. Not believing a book is very different from not knowing what it says. It says languages. It never says anything other than languages. If you're speaking in tongues, you're producing languages. That is a testable claim. It has been tested. It has never passed. I never said anecdotal evidence has no value. I said it is insufficient. Before I continue, I would like to be clear on what subjects are on topic and what subjects are off. I started a thread specifically to avoid derailing threads like this one, and if I need to move my thoughts there to keep this thread on topic, I'd like to know.

I confess, this thread approaches (and refutes) the Answers in Genesis type of interpretation of the book. I think broadening the scope to include multiple interpretations would quickly make the thread unwieldy, but I suppose it would not be off-topic.

With actual errors, I carefully crafted definitions in order to limit my ability to declare something an error. Far from precluding conclusions other than those I already hold, my definitions worked against me by design. They had to, or the premise of my argument would have failed. Further, I did not offer an individualist definition of evidence. Rather, I set an unusually high threshold for what made something an error as opposed to a difference of opinion or interpretation.

When you say I'm ignoring mountains of evidence that I've actually considered and rejected, you speak an untruth. That you accept something as evidence and I reject it is something we can state clearly without disagreeing further. But evidence and faith are not compatible terms in the context of this discussion. Look clearly. You are telling me that in order to hold my position, I need to ignore evidence. That's simply not true. What I am ignoring is not evidence, it's the claim. You said Pentecostals CAN and DO speak in tongues. That's an assertion, which you go on to cite as evidence I'm ignoring. Now, if you are saying as a matter of faith that Pentecostals speak in tongues, I have no quarrel with you. You believe that, and I can't argue with what you believe. But when you cite that practice as evidence, you simultaneously make the claim that what they are doing has a supernatural element and is more than mere free vocalization. I dispute that. You do not get your own definition of evidence, sorry to say. You only get your own standard of what evidence you are willing to accept as proving your assertion, and I think the history of this discussion contains admissions on both sides that the evidence alone does not confirm SIT as genuine. If it did, the whole world would be Christian.

Just one quibble: Again, emphasis mine. And again, I defy you or anyone else to produce this "evidence." The studies that have been done, that have failed to detect known languages, are all of Pentecostals, not of TWI people. The evidence that exists indicates that Pentecostals are not producing languages. So to say I am rejecting SIT because of Wierwille's chicanery is actually 180 degrees incorrect. The only evidence there is to examine is of Pentecostals, not Wierwillites. (And it should be clear that I am not counting unsubstantiated anecdotes as "evidence"). I don't see an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of speaking in tongues. In fact, I don't see evidence at all. 100 percent of the evidence that we can substantiate supports the proposition that SIT is nothing more than free vocalization, with no supernatural element to it at all. I'm not going to argue about what you believe versus what I believe. That's between you and your God. But when you start talking about "the evidence," you step outside the realm of personal faith and into the realm of what can be objectively shown.

I'll post something tonight. :)

I'm a little backed up. If you're patient, I'll post something today or tomorrow. If you've got something ready, free post.

And I used to live in the Florida city. Hollywood Squares

I'm not going to respond to everything written on this thread, much as I want to , because I don't feel I would be writing much of anything that hasn't been covered before. I do want to address one statement Steve made. "Even if Wierwille was a total fraud (which I think he was), and even if every single person who graduated from Power For Abundant Living was deliberately faking tongues throughout their whole time in the Way (which I do not think was the case), it probably would not have made a perceptible difference in the number of people speaking in tongues in the world." (emphasis mine) I want to clarify anything I stated or misstated before: I don't think people deliberately faked anything. I think we believed it was real and/or convinced ourselves it was real. My personal belief is that this was universal. Steve and others disagree. We've made that clear. No need to rehash it. As for what science has and has not demonstrated, I'll state my position this way: Science has demonstrated that it is possible for someone to produce (what we called, in another thread) free vocalization. Charismatic Christianity has not demonstrated to my satisfaction that it is producing anything other than free vocalization when it claims to be producing "speaking in tongues." Anecdotal evidence does not impress me. It satisfies others. Impasse. No need to rehash it. You guys are talking past each other, I submit. More power to ya!

I think I can take it for granted that Steve and I do not agree with each other on the "reality" of speaking in tongues, so responding to his post with this strikes me as... I don't know, I can't think of the right word. I just feel like "it's all a bunch of hooey" is my position, Steve rejects my position and is entitled to explore and refine his own position using his standards (the Bible, tradition, reason, experience, prehaps in that order, along with any other criteria he decides to use). I'm interested in hearing him out, knowing that at the end, I'm going to say "it's all a bunch of hooey." I'm looking at it this way: I'm interested in learning what the Bible actually says about speaking in tongues, whether it differs from what I was previously taught, whether there's anything I can learn about it, and whether I need to adjust my argument to respond to new or amended information. I'll keep reading now. :)

Just noticed this thread and the subtitle. Laughed at the subtitle. Thanks for the chuckle. Now to read the posts (yikes).

I just don't think my question was so ethereal that it required the word "quantum" to answer. Everyone knew what I meant, the answer was obvious, and everything else is smoke and mirrors. Sorry, but it's frustrating. Understanding that Genesis is not history but mythology changes things for a lot of Christians, who now have to ask, "well, in what sense is it true?" THEN you can get into all of the business we're talking about here. The notion that the Biblical flood was inspired by something that actually took place... I mean, come on, no duh! 95 percent of fiction fits that category. That doesn't mean it deserves the label "based on a true story." The question being raised (mostly on another thread) is whether the flood described in Genesis actually happened, not whether some other flood happened that inspired the writer of Genesis to plagiarize write a fictional account featuring a 600-year-old ship builder and his childbearing age daughters-in-law. I'm going to stop writing before I get rude and/or off-topic. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on your achaeology class, Steve.

Silent Running Man of La Mancha Silent Running The Running Man Man of La Mancha

The Natural

I find the bulk of this discussion unnecessarily complicated. Enjoy pursuing it if you must. I think you answered my question in simple terms, and I'll just be satisfied with leaving it at that.

I guess that's why they call it the blues By Elton John

In case this is where you were going: The notion of "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die" is often associated with the philosophy of Epicureanism, though I admit in my own head I pictured something more akin to Hedonism when I heard that phrase. Hedonism is a selfish, inconsiderate and frankly dangerous way to go through life. Seeking pleasure for the sake of pleasure is not wise. Perhaps I am not defining the term properly, but whatever. I don't want to get bogged down in definitions. I will say this: Eat healthy, for a long and healthy life. Drink in moderation, enjoy the pleasures of life without endangering yourself or anyone around you. Be merry. Because why not? But in addition, be sober, be considerate, be mindful. We are alive for a brief amount of time, but in that time we can and will have an effect on those around us and those who will succeed us. We are more likely to be environmentally minded, not because we worship nature, but because we don't expect a magic janitor is going to come along someday to clean up our mess. That is certainly neither Epicurean nor hedonistic. Just some thoughts.

I eat for nourishment. I drink in moderation. I'm merry because I have no reason not to be.

For the first paragraph, nothing I wrote was intended to be a blanket statement. I apologize if I was less than clear about that. For the second paragraph, again, I don't think there was one TWI experience. I give them more credit than you do. I don't think that makes either of us incorrect.

The emphasis in bold is mine. Allan, I don't see where anyone is saying anything of the kind about Jesus, Moses or Paul. I have not implied that they were misguided idiots anywhere, and certainly not on this thread. Quick grammar lesson, by the way: INFERRING is done by the hearers and readers of information, not by the speakers and writers. You meant to say "By your statements you IMPLY they were misguided idiots." Which I dispute. I neither said nor intended any such thing.

On another thread, Allan wrote: I think Allan raises a very fair question, one that deserves an honest answer. Here’s the challenge, as I see it. According to TWI, sonship is an inside job that cannot be renounced. I can’t renounce being a son of God anymore than I can renounce being my father’s son. [More accurately, I can renounce it all I want, but I can’t undo it]. So if TWI is correct, I’m saved, and there’s not a thing I can do about it. I can renounce Christianity as a fairy tale (and I do) and it would not change the fact that when the trumpet sounds, I’ll be right next to the rest of you, praising away. You want to know if I take comfort in that? Well, no, not really. I am no more comforted by Christianity’s heaven than I am worried about Islam’s hell. I believe both fates are equally imaginary. Do you lie awake at night worried that maybe the Norse had it right and Odin is going to be really, really mad at you? Neither do I. In the same way, I take no comfort in what I once believed. I recognize that the particular brand of Christianity that I followed had no more chance of being right than Catholicism, no more chance of being right than the Watchtower Society, no more chance of being right than the Mormons. I will say this: If I’m wrong now, as an atheist, then I hope I was right before, because that wouldbe comforting. But if I’m wrong now and I was wrong then, well, wow, so what? I lose twice. But at least I’m being honest with myself and not believing “just in case.” Wierwille used Pascal’s Wager in his teaching: “If we’re wrong, we have nothing to lose. If we’re right, we have everything to gain. Unbelievers have nothing to gain and everything to lose.” Pascal’s Wager, of course, has a fallacy you could orbit a galaxy around: It only makes sense if there are only two choices. It does not acknowledge that Christians and atheists could both be wrong and destined for Allah’s hell. So to answer your question, Allan, no, I do not take comfort in “knowing” that I’m “saved.” I’m not saved. Neither are you. We are fortunate enough to have beaten the odds against our existence, to have this one shot at experiencing this wonderful, beautiful thing called life. I don’t know what will happen when I die. Lot's of things, I suppose. All I know is, they won’t involve me.

Allan, that's an interesting point you raise. My problem is, TWI taught that I couldn't renounce my salvation if I wanted to. I'll see you up there, period, no matter what I believe now. I believe a full answer to your question would be off-topic. I am posting my response here, to avoid derailing THIS thread.