SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

He could so count! Naysayer.

Just because your $2 bills were phony doesn't mean mine were, even though we both used the exact same method taught by the same Count R. Fitter to produce the bills. Prove mine are fake!

[Raf]

And don't talk to me about checking the serial numbers or watermarks. There's no way to prove my $2 bills are fake. Nope. Lalalala I can't hear you....

[waysider]

Prove mine are fake!

O.K.

Take a 4X handheld magnifying glass. Now, look very closely at the words "In Vic we trust.".......................

[Raf]

Wrong answer! Examining the bill itself will not tell you whether it's a fake!

(seriously, guys, do you even realize this is what you're saying when you argue that SIT can't be proved or disproved? Severe case of wishful thinking on your part).

Edited September 16, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

I printed some phony two dollar bills once. I just replaced some of the usual verbiage with I John, chapter1, in Greek.

Fooled everybody.

[Raf]

You and I were taught to make $2 by the same person. Mine look very much like yours. But mine are real.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

You and I were taught to make $2 by tge same person. Mine look very much like yours. But mine are real.

Real?

They're just little green pieces of paper with pictures of dead presidents!

[Raf]

See? Just like the real thing, because it is real.

[waysider]

Ever heard the expression "You can take that to the bank."?

If I were you, I wouldn't take too many of those "real" bills to the bank.

Ya know what I mean, Vern?

[Raf]

Reminds me of something the Count, R. Fitter, once said: too much complicated banking and not enough simple believing.

[waysider]

Reminds me of something else Roderick (You know he wasn't really a Count, don't you?) Fitter said in the Christians Must Have Sex class....

"You'll just have to trust me on this."

[Raf]

And there ypu have it, folks. Now lets sit back and watch how this analogy really doesn't hold because it's easy to prove a counterfeit bill is counterfeit but impossible, impossible, I say, to verify that someone speaking a foreign language is actually speaking a foreign language.

[year2027]

God first

this should be Doctrinal area

[Ham]

good point..

[Raf]

No, it should not. Doctrinal would be a discussion about whether it's biblically accurate. This is not about doctrine at all.

[johniam]

quote: I'm not disputing that the Bible says believers can speak in tongues. If you disagree with that, ok by me. It's irrelevant to my point. My point is that I faked it. I encourage others who faked it to come clean. Period. My point ends there.

No, you're forcefully implying that all twi SIT was fake.

quote: I have to say....I fall into the camp that thinks it was really a mass delusion.

Mass delusion? Those words are not found in scripture. They ARE found in Freud's essay 'Civilization and its discontents' however, He used those exact words to describe all religions. Nice to know whose side you're working for.

[Raf]

I am not forcibly doing anything, nor am I implying anything. I am freely exercising my free expression and stating outright that we were all deceiving ourselves and, by extension, each other.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

Nice to know whose side you're working for.

Geeze, what a convenient cop-out that is.

Don't want to consider something in Way Theology might be flawed?....Just say it's (consideration) from the devil.

Edited September 16, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

The term "inspirational manifestations" is not in the Bible. SIT is by inspiration, not revelation... Is an expression that cannot be found in the Bible. You are therefore barred from using those terms.

P.S., johniam, I think it's fundamentally dishonest of you to cut my quote off where you did, as though I said nothing relevant after that. I specifically addressed the point you made, and it should embarrass you to ignore that.

Then again, that would require humility.

[waysider]

Truth be told....None of the manifestation "definitions" are in the scriptures. Wierwille plagiarized those, word for word, from a source that escapes my memory at the moment.

[waysider]

In my opinion, the real issue here is having a willingness to consider things you never dared to before. Break free of session #7. Explore life's mysteries and possibilities. Question doctrines. Question practices. Insist on proof when the situation calls for it. Accept change. Go beyond what you've been taught.

[Steve Lortz]

Raf, you and I have often come to different conclusions, but I have always enjoyed considering your point of view, and have learned many things in the process, especially on the Actual Errors thread. I like to think we are friends, even if only in a virtual manner. I remember conversations I heard in my Pop's newsroom when I was a boy growing up. They were pretty free-wheeling! But the reporters doing the arguing would still go have a drink with each other afterwards!

I've taken my contributions on tongues to the doctrinal thread, because that's literally what I'm working with... doctrinal stuff, but I'm continuing to follow this thread with great interest, particularly the posts that cite studies. I'm getting pointed to better anti-tongues sources here than in any of my other reading.

I only have one comment on the course of this argument. To say "my experience of tongues was fake" is a falsifiable statement that can be proven or disproven. To say "ALL experiences with tongues are fake" is not falsifiable, which means it cannot be proven or disproven. To prove it would require testing ALL experiences with tongues, and if a single one is genuine, your premise fails.

Carry ON!

Love,

Steve

[Raf]

You know, johniam, none of the behavior you characterize as bullying would have even taken place had you not demanded proof from me that my position is correct. You can shut me up in a nanosecond by speaking in a language you've never learned AND proving it's really a language. But you can't. Because it's not. AND YOU KNOW IT. And it's killing you. So you attack me.

It's pathetic, man.

Steve, I mostly agree with you on verification. But you correctly place the burden on the identification of a genuine experience. If you can find one person with a genuine, I lose. Therefore, my premise is falsifiable and can be disproven.

Go for it!

Edited September 16, 2012 by Raf

[Ham]

Truth be told....None of the manifestation "definitions" are in the scriptures. Wierwille plagiarized those, word for word, from a source that escapes my memory at the moment.

It was from a little paperback book.. Angels of Light? Or something like that.

It was a little paperback that new students in the advanced class were supposed to read. It probably should have been called "how to perform an exorcism, in three easy lessons"..

[geisha779]

quote: I have to say....I fall into the camp that thinks it was really a mass delusion.

Mass delusion? Those words are not found in scripture. They ARE found in Freud's essay 'Civilization and its discontents' however, He used those exact words to describe all religions. Nice to know whose side you're working for.

You really are a piece of work. What side would that be.....the side of SATAN? Ooooh cue scary music. Only ex-way can play that card with a straight face. And why am I batting for the wrong team again? Because I don't buy into TWI's mass delusion that we are manifesting at our will the power of the Almighty by babbling incoherently and then spitting out some lame and yes practiced, indoctrinated, perfunctory, or coerced ....supposed exhortation. Talk about deluded.

I don't need Freud to tell me anything....I can simply pick up a bible and read about the genuine to see we were MILES away from anything close to what scripture describes. Shame you can't say the same.

You made my day though. Really....this reminds how frickin lucky I am that I escaped with a few brain cells intact.