Raf

Keeping a thread on topic and directing a doctrinal discussion to the doctrinal forum is not stifling conversation, cman. I am sorry my view of scripture is not accepted by everyone, but that is a doctrinal discussion and it's not my fault that people decide to ignore their very own threads and instead insist on having doctrinal debates in a non-doctrinal thread. This thread assumes a doctrinal position and proceeds from there. If you want to debate the doctrinal assumption, and you started a thread in doctrinal to have such a debate, I recommend holding the doctrinal discussion there and request that you stop trying to derail this thread. CMan, I am not calling anyone names. I have characterized a particular conversation with a particular poster as fruitless, and have explained why I came to that conclusion. No namecalling here. No rules violation here. Nice try. OldSkool, I agree with you wholeheartedly. There's a difference between demanding from God a promise he doesn't give and proving MAN's CLAIMS by holding MAN's CLAIMS to a Biblical standard, which is all I have done on this thread.

I've already discredited your argument scripturally. You act as though I have not. Then, proceeding from that assumption, you draw conclusions based on your misinterpretation of scripture. Nothing obliges me to entertain that. I have still not received an apology from you for your unspeakable rudeness the other day. I vowed to stop engaging you, and clearly should have kept to my word. So if you don't mind (or even if you do), I'm going to go back to ignoring you. Not because I'm avoiding your "logic," but because arguing with you has repeatedly proven to be fruitless. When I refute your "logic," you simply declare that I haven't and barrel your way through the discussion anyway. I have no obligation to address that. I've changed minds. You have not. That alone should tell you who's making the stronger logical argument. Good day.

LOL. Nice. So expecting God to be faithful to His Word is tempting God. Ok. Whatever you say. Our disagreement is doctrinal. Kindly take your argument there.

Aside from not being part of the Ten Commandments (seriously, do you just make stuff up and hope no one will notice?) "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" is a rebuke against Israel for demanding a miracle from God that He had not promised. To apply it to SIT is to say we should not expect God to be faithful to His promise, which is quite a different proposition. You may not expect God to live up to His Word, but when you claim to be doing what His Word says, I expect His Word's results. Modern SIT doesn't pass this test. On this basis, I doubt the modern practice, not the Scripture.

There's no need to carry on with aspects of the conversation that have been beaten to death. Enough other people seemed interested in the doctrinal segue that has been taken, so I decided to address those questions on their own, doctrinal terms. If anyone disagrees with that, there's really nothing to debate. My argument is based on SIT producing languages. An interpretation of scripture that argues the phenomenon cannot be studied by its very nature, while not an argument that I agree with and not an argument I believe is consistent with the Bible's teaching on SIT, is also not an argument I can counter because there is no common ground there. So we part in peace. That argument is doctrinal. This thread is not. I have been grateful over the past few days to receive private e-mails from people who reflected on their experience and recognized that the behavior I described matches their own experience. They have freed themselves of the delusion that invaded their own lives, and to me, any growth that sheds dishonesty and embraces truth is a positive step. Whether I am right that it's ALL a fake or not, the reality is that many, many people faked it, more than are willing to admit it, and this thread can give them the impetus to unburden themselves of a practice that was, at least for them, completely fraudulent.

The post above this one does not reflect edits I made to the post quoted. I am responsible for any discrepancies.

I'm not sure it squelches that particular argument, OldSkool. Not disagreeing with you, just not making the same connection you are. Wierwille and today's Pentecostalism may have a common source, but the areas in which they diverge may be relevant. Or not. Who knows?

OldSkool, Yes, Samarin included Pentecostals in his research, among others.

The contention has been made, repeatedly, that I Corinthians 14:2 contains an "absolute" statement that "no man understands." Whether the verse itself applies to the speaker or the audience is irrelevant, for even if one were to concede that it applies to the audience as well as the speaker, I contend the verse itself is still in the context of the average worship service and cannot be extrapolated to cover all situations. The Biblical support for my belief as it applies to the Biblical practice has been previously cited as Acts 2, where men did understand. I agree that Acts 2 is an unusual situation in which God saw to it that the languages spoken were actually understood by those present. I Corinthians tells us that there's no guarantee this will be the case in all instances of SIT. But it does NOT say that the languages spoken will themselves be unknown by any other human. The Biblical definition of speaking in languages is self-defining: speaking in LANGUAGES. (WordWolf's recent comment on these same lines had not been posted as I was originally writing this). It bears repeating that if I Corinthians 14:2 is "absolute" in its assertion that "no man understands," that would by definition discount any modern instance in which someone present DID in fact understand. How can people understand what was spoken if "no man understands" is absolute? It is not. The fact remains that the person who speaks in languages will produce a language that CAN be understood by man, but typically is not understood in a worship setting. That is the clear reading of the verse. Contorting it to say otherwise is a retrofit: interpreting the scripture in light of our experience rather than allowing the scripture to define and predict our experience. If our experience fails to meet Biblical expectations, we should change our experience, not the scripture! The notion that "no man understands" contains a blanket prediction that others will not understand, as an absolute, is without merit both in scripture and by the defense of the modern practice. If "no man understands" is absolute, then cases where people did understand are not of God! But it's not absolute. It's in a context. And that context does not negate the testable claim that speaking in languages will produce languages. Paul never contemplated the field of linguistics. Paul knew darned well that the SIT he was writing about produced real human languages (as every other use of that word in the Bible, when not referring literally or metaphorically to the physical tongue, indicates a real language, including in I Corinthians 14:9, where the language IS spoken with the understanding: same word in the same context, but no distinction between what it produced insofar as it being a language is concerned). I continue to contend that using this verse to absolve SIT of the burden of independent examination is a cop out, one more excuse to make a testable claim untestable, one more excuse as to why the modern practice of SIT does not produce Biblically predicted results. I accept that people disagree with my position here. But I believe my position is in full keeping with the Scripture on the subject. If you disagree, our disagreement is doctrinal and the discussion belongs there. I do not believe the Bible promises an experience indistinguishable from fakery except to the faithful. I believe the Bible makes a testable assertion that modern SIT fails to meet.

Thanks. Now that we're all reminded, let us all continue on that course.

Good hint. Can't remember the name, though. Something like: Finding A Date for the End of the World. Close enough?

Part BG Leonard, part JE Stiles. Don't know their sources, other than the Bible. The GS site rules, including what's not permitted, are posted for all to see.

When it comes to the rules of this forum, everyone is told what they can and cannot say. You're no different. Neither am I.

Imagine that. Listen, cman, you are being unnecessarily confrontational and deliberately rude. I'm asking you politely to knock it off. You are obviously capable of staying on topic without making things personal. I ask that you continue on that course. Yes, I am hung up on the word language. Why that should be controversial, I have no idea. Manufactured excuses as to why language suddenly doesn't mean language anymore don't impress me as easily as they seem to impress others. If God promised to give me something that was indistinguishable from its counterfeit, I'd feel a little let down.

I keep trying to return the thread to the topic. I answered your question with an on topic response. You answered with a patronizing dismissal that did not contribute to the discussion but instead made it personal. So I ask you to please stop.

I answered a specific question that you asked about what the verse In question is saying, and I applied it to the context of this thread. No need for you to get snippy about it, cman.

I think the context is clear that neither the speaker nor the audience understands the LANGUAGE that is brought forth. I think the context is clear that the audience being spoken of is a typical worship service. I think the verse is clear that what is produced IS a language. No, it's not a major point. Rather, it's a given. Speaking in languages produces languages. The verse cannot be "absolute" and apply to all gatherings, or it would contradict Acts 2. Modern tongues speakers cannot believe it is "absolute" or applies to all gatherings, or they would be compelled to dispense with their precious anecdotes. But to believe that God confounds linguists so that they can't detect languages in glossolalia is to introduce an element of hocus pocus that is foreign to the text. The bottom line is that SIT remains, at its core, a very testable claim. If you're producing a language, then you're doing what the Word promises. If you're not, then you're doing something else. You're doing something else.

By the way, "different" kinds of tongues is not the word heteros OR allos. It's in italics. Heteros is in the term "to another," which is a reference to either the people receiving the gift or the profit of the manifestation, depending on your theology. It has nothing to do with the language.

Ah, of course. To another, diverse kinds of tongues. It's still languages, no matter how you slice it. It's different from the language of the speaker. It's not different from human language.

I don't see where heteros and allos even come into play in this discussion. Is there a verse someone is pointing to where that distinction is important?

Which words?

Cheating to move it along Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy Alan Rickman Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves

Sounds logical to me. This is just another sophisticated excuse as to why the modern, phony, counterfeit practice does not produce Biblical results. Do I really need to defend the proposition that speaking in languages should result in people speaking in languages? I mean, I need to prove this? It's a tautology, for Pete's sake. Take a verse out of context and mangle it so that languages are only languages if people looking for languages aren't listening, and you haven't discredited my argument. You've disgraced your own.

If I can put on the modhat without switching ID's: Whether Rocky has a valid point or not is for skyrider to consider. Whether that point is related to this thread or not is a separate issue. So without judging the content of Rocky's post for its validity, without judging whether or not it's good advice that skyrider should heed, I think a strong case can be made that it's off-topic for this thread. No warnings, no reprimands. Just a gentle nudge back on topic, please.

Yup