Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
Sign in to follow this  
Raf

Seeing the dark

Recommended Posts

Thanks Raf.

I don't think there was any known animosity between you and I, just a rather strong disagreement. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back when I was running the Living Epistles Society website and forum, I intended to make it a "safe haven" for Christian ex-followers of TWI, but I soon realized that I had put myself in the unenviable position of having to decide who was and was not a Christian. I made a lot of judgment calls (Mormons - no, Jehovah;s Witnesses, yes). But I was really uncomfortable with being in that position. Chuck, if your views are now what they were then, I can see why I would not have considered you Christian, but really, it is SO not my place to judge. It never was.

It was easier to abandon the site than it was to manage it.

In any event, you have always been very gracious about it and I had forgotten our "clash" or whatever you want to call it. I'm grateful for your acceptance and forgiveness.

Peace.

Oh, and welcome back.

It's nothing more than my own curiosity, Raf, but did you at any time in the past know or believe or think (I'm not exactly sure how you might see it) that Jesus Christ was a real person that died, and after 3 days rose from the dead to live forever? And if so, do you know (and/or can you say) why you did?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt I can do justice to your question without taking more time than anyone here has, but I'll give you the short version.

First, yes. Of course I did. I was a Christian. I believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why? I was taught the story at a young age and believed it to be history. As I grew older, I abandoned bits of the Bible piece by piece, but the resurrection was one thing that I continued to believe, up until I realized there is no historical basis for it. That is, I believed that the early believers, those in a position to know for a fact whether he was raised, chose death over the prospect of renunciating that faith. In other words, "renounce the resurrection, or die," and they chose death.

but that never happened. Ever. There is no evidence to support the assertion.

I'm not going to rag on anyone for continuing to believe it did happen, but I am confident that it did not and see no reason to believe otherwise.

Without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. So no, I no longer believe that happened. If I had not been indoctrinated as a child, I think my chances of believing in the resurrection are on par with my chances of believing in Mohammed's flying horse.

No offense, but you asked.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without the resurrection, there is no Christianity.

No offense, but you asked.

Not sure why anyone would be offended, and I am in complete agreement that there is no (genuine) Christianity apart from the resurrection.

I suppose we each have our own story, our own reasons for why we do or don't (and did or didn't), believe it. Having said that, I think there is also a scientific (neurological) basis that helps explain how the mind perceives reality, and why what one person takes to be "real" may not be the same as what another does. In other words, what one sees as being "truth" will not be what the other sees. Without a similar basis for reality, it is essentially impossible to reach any agreement on what reality, or truth, is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, if we can't agree on a frame of reference, we can't agree on "truth." Should we care to converse, we would have to first find a common frame of reference and build from there.

One of the things I tried to accomplish with the speaking in tongues thread was to tackle the subject without challenging the frame of reference. My observations on that thread stand whether or not you believe in God or accept the authority of scripture. (Not everyone agrees with me on that point, but a few people do, and remain believers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I had put myself in the unenviable position of having to decide who was and was not a Christian. I made a lot of judgment calls (Mormons - no, Jehovah;s Witnesses, yes). B

I thought that you let me in even though I came out as a pagan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also remember having very strict rules about what you could or could not say.

It was a real pain in the neck, and in the end I decided that I did not want to be in the position of deciding who was and was not a Christian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, if we can't agree on a frame of reference, we can't agree on "truth." Should we care to converse, we would have to first find a common frame of reference and build from there.

One of the things I tried to accomplish with the speaking in tongues thread was to tackle the subject without challenging the frame of reference. My observations on that thread stand whether or not you believe in God or accept the authority of scripture. (Not everyone agrees with me on that point, but a few people do, and remain believers).

Considering the possibility that "two realities" can exist (one in the mind of person A, another in the mind of person B... each being the result a different frame of reference), I wonder what your response would be to the following.

Regardless of whether speaking in tongues is an actual language or gibberish, I'm inclined to think that this makes no significant difference from the perspective of the speaker (who would not understand either one and view both as being unintelligible.) If, in their innermost being, they do not believe that they are speaking to God, then it's hard to picture what sort of benefit or reason they would have for doing it. If, on the other hand, they do believe that they are speaking to God, then it's hard to picture what practical difference it makes to the person speaking, who doesn't know or recognize any difference between the two.

In other words, consider that there is a logical sequencing of possibilities (regardless of whether it is or isn't speaking to God.)

1) There is no benefit to SIT.

2) There is no benefit to gibberish.

3) There are benefits to SIT.

4) There are benefits to gibberish.

If there's no benefits (to either), then it makes no difference if it is or isn't a language. (However, it is contrary to scripture to say there is no benefit to SIT.)

It there are benefits (to either), then it's:

1) Because something changes in or with God.

2) Because something changes in the hearers.

3) Because something changes in the speaker.

If it's because something changes in or with God, who knows the thoughts and intents of the heart of man, why would it matter if it is or isn't a language?

If it's because something changes in or with the hearers, then it raises the question of what difference (if any) it would make that the hearers can or must identify it as a language. Some might, but it is virtually assured that many (perhaps most all) either can't or won't make the distinction. It then would be necessary to outline the prospective difference in benefits if they do or don't. Complicating that issue would be the matter of those that accept gibberish (if that's what it is) as a language, those that would not think it a language, and those that sometimes think gibberish is a language and other times don't. Needless to say, it rather quickly gets very complicated and difficult to sort out, much less effectively address WHY either might have such and such effects on hearers, or whether this aspect of it should or would outweigh or overshadow any benefits resulting from #1 or #3.

If it's because something changes in the speaker (who we already know doesn't know or recognize any difference between the two), then:

1) The changes in the speaker happen because of SIT, and it is communicating with God.

2) The changes in the speaker happen for some other reason, perhaps being nothing more than the placebo effect of believing they are speaking in an unknown language to God, even though it's only gibberish.

When benefits are realized as a result of either of these possibilities, then either:

1) The benefits are indeed the same.

2) The benefits are not the same.

If the benefits are the same, then it effectively makes no difference (in relation to the speaker) whether it is or isn't a language.

If the benefits are not the same, then it begs the question... when and how does anyone really know that they aren't the same (as they relate to the speaker)?

Is there any sensible frame of reference for comparing them? (Because I'm drawing a complete blank here.)

Furthermore, who's purpose does it serve to eliminate said placebo effect, if or when it is observed or declared by others to be nothing more than that?

Do you think that the effects of it should or would be any less effective or "real" to the one experiencing it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make no actual argument that SIT is genuine. Not really any issue to discuss there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make no actual argument that SIT is genuine. Not really any issue to discuss there.

The point is, if the effect or benefits of it are the same (whether genuine or not), then what actual difference does it make?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say it again: You make no argument that SIT is genuine. There is nothing for me to address.

"What difference does it make?" is not my question to answer. It's yours. If it makes you feel good to babble in a corner and pretend it's "perfect prayer" or some such nonsense, be my guest. I'm not going to stop you until you start pushing it as a real thing. You didn't. You made no argument for its authenticity at all. So there is nothing at all for me to address.

Edited by Raf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say it again: You make no argument that SIT is genuine. There is nothing for me to address.

"What difference does it make?" is not my question to answer. It's yours. If it makes you feel good to babble in a corner and pretend it's "perfect prayer" or some such nonsense, be my guest. I'm not going to stop you until you start pushing it as a real thing. You didn't. You made no argument for its authenticity at all. So there is nothing at all for me to address.

Backing up to the beginning of my earlier post, I noted the possibility that two realities for it can and do exist because of how reality is perceived. Given that it produces the same intended effect or benefits (if it does), is proof enough of the authenticity or "realness" of it. Not proof or verification to everyone, that's for sure. But it can be (or is) to the one doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Given that it produces the same intended effect or benefits (if it does), is proof enough of the authenticity or "realness" of it."

Except it doesn't. If it did, it would be easy to authenticate.

In fact, when coupled with the bogus law of believing (camera analogy from The Bible Tells Me So), it can have gravely damaging effects. Case in point: People have tried to use this method to resolve complex, serious issues while ignoring proven methods of intervention. Some paid dearly. Some even died. So, when people tell me it couldn't hurt, my response would be that the outcome is relative to the situation.

edit: grammar

Edited by waysider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TLC, You're confusing authenticity with sincerity (which, I heard somewhere once, is not a guarantee for truth).

The sincerity of your beliefs as they motivate your actions do not validate those actions as authentic.

It's real simple: Either you're producing languages or you're not. If you're not, you're not speaking in tongues, period. It may bring you all the "benefits" you predict. It brings you peace. It makes you feel closer to God. Issues you were meditating on might get resolved, "miraculously." Hey, more power to you.

But that doesn't mean you spoke in tongues, or that your exercise of this practice had even the slightest thing to do with the outcome you desired. Since it's impossible to tell what would have happened had you NOT spoken in tongues (allegedly), any claim that there was a cause-and-effect relationship is not testable. I have nothing to say about it. I've prayed for things that came to pass. I've prayed for things that did not.

If it makes you feel better, go for it. I'm not going to stop you.

But if you're not producing a language, you're not speaking in tongues.

You can buy something with counterfeit money, but it's still counterfeit money. Your ability to use it for a desired end is dependent on the recipient's inability to tell it from the real thing. Deception on your part is not required, because it's still counterfeit money even if you believe from the bottom of your heart that it's real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Given that it produces the same intended effect or benefits (if it does), is proof enough of the authenticity or "realness" of it."

Except it doesn't. If it did, it would be easy to authenticate.

Whether it does or doesn't is a subjective matter. If for you it doesn't, then it doesn't. If for me it does, then it does.

SIT is a "one way" (or "in one direction") venue of communication, as it is plainly written that the speaker does not understand what is spoken (or verbalized.)

The direction of it is also clearly stated. It is toward God, not men. (1Cor.14:2)

Not that many here are likely to agree with this, but to purport that any and every genuine "unknown tongue" MUST abide by or conform to the same format or limits of intelligibility as any known language of men locks God in a box and appears (to me) to elevate the ability (i.e., intelligence) of man above the abilities and intelligence of God.

Further to that, it is written in 1Cor.4:5 to judge NOTHING before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts.

So, I guess that's where I see this matter being best left at.

In fact, when coupled with the bogus law of believing...

I agree, believing wasn't taught right. But I don't see that automatically nullifying everything else that was said or taught. It takes a lot of effort to separate the good from the bad. (And if anyone never really learned how to "think," a good place to start is in their own head.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all appears to be relative, Raf. Even if a professional linquist could or did identify whatever is spoken as a bona fide language, it would still require confirmation that it was an unknown language to the speaker, and (dare I even say it) that it wasn't a product of the devil. (Talk about opening a can of worms...)

Edited by TLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, once you verify that it's a language, you have to verify that it was unknown to the speaker. Once you have done both, you've pretty much confirmed the only explanation is supernatural. "Product of the devil"? No, you're not opening a can of worms. The can is empty. Relax.

Not that many here are likely to agree with this, but to purport that any and every genuine "unknown tongue" MUST abide by or conform to the same format or limits of intelligibility as any known language of men locks God in a box and appears (to me) to elevate the ability (i.e., intelligence) of man above the abilities and intelligence of God.

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

Sure, it can be seen as that.

And for some, it might be just that.

Then again, it might be thinking outside the box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Just excuses. You wouldn't have to think outside the box if SIT delivered on its claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the possibility that "two realities" can exist (one in the mind of person A, another in the mind of person B... each being the result a different frame of reference), I wonder what your response would be to the following.

...snip...

You know, Zen Buddhism, quantum mechanics and Judaism would say both realities are real...

Love,

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has quite a history and also, quite a diversity. Some issues here have been entertained that normally would have been directed to past threads on the topic, i.e. SIT, yet, the discussions continued (seems to have been a breech in GSC protocol, like the double dog dare).

Regardless, the intercourse is well worth reading and I especially appreciate the recent discertation of TLC and RAF, noting RAF continues to talk from a position of knowledge without reserve and I see that as appropriate - not to let knowledge of something, even though you don't beleive it anymore, become dormant. I sure hope that made sense. I respect RAF's comments, it now takes on a honest broker perspective - ain't the first time I said that.

So, what's my point, given I am now into the 3d paragraph, it's the recent discussion on SIT and are you speaking a language. Well, I "think" that it's supposed to be a language and one the speaker does not know (and I have been exposed to many) but how "proper" does it need to be in accordance with what modern linguistitions (it's a word, maybe) think. The language may not fit modern terminoloy of text (syntax is the correct term I think). Thus, how can it be tested? Actually, I wish it could.

I have been told that your "tongue" can change, well, having SIT'd for nearly 50 years, I have lost track of how many tongues I have spoken. At one point it seemed I tossed around 3 different tongues in the same period of time - not mixed at the same time of course (maybe I was more spiritual then, that's only a joke on my part, only Jesus knows).

I have wished I had recorded myself speaking in tongues in the past and now wonder if it's correct to do it or then, I think not, is it a proof or dis-proof of anything = kinda like reading your wife's email account = distrust: does that make sense to any of you?

In recent year/s, it seems to be only one but some older words no longer are spoken and newer words become spoken. Now, if I were to go back and read all the past threads on SIT'n then I would see if it were foolish for me to even write such things here but since the discussion has become open, especially between knowledgable folks such as TLC and RAF, I feel comfortable asking their opinion on my statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I'm really restraining myself in terms of pulling the "get back on topic" card, but seeing as this thread was dormant for so long and, I think, there is so little desire to resurrect the SIT thread, I'm just exercising patience. If another mod wants to jump in, I'm good with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I'm really restraining myself in terms of pulling the "get back on topic" card, but seeing as this thread was dormant for so long and, I think, there is so little desire to resurrect the SIT thread, I'm just exercising patience. If another mod wants to jump in, I'm good with that.

So RAF, wouldn't worry about throwing the "off topic" card, hell, you and TLC were already off topic yourselves if you ID the topic from the start of the thread. So, what does RAF say: we go on with the thread as is or do we jump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MRAP, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but seeing as this thread is what it is, and where it is, I'm going to gently recommend you ask your question in one of the SIT threads in the main doctrinal section, where it really seems more at home.

My answer is you faked it. You were taught to fake it and you have concocted a slew of excuses for why it doesn't produce what the Bible promises: a known human language. The most obvious answer is that you're not producing languages, but that doesn't square with your faith.

From my perspective, I have offered an explanation that perfectly describes our shared experience, though it doesn't fit a bunch of predictably unsubstantiated claims about visitors from West Bubbahump who recognized the language and then went back to West Bubbahump, never to be seen again. A likely story.

From a Christian perspective, I think an exploration of what you're all doing is necessary because it doesn't seem to match what the Bible says will happen. From MY perspective, I predict you'll never produce what the Bible says, and I don't see where an unbeliever is obliged to explain anything when I've already offered an explanation that fits the facts.

Produce a language and I have some explaining to do. Don't produce a language? Talk among yourselves.

So RAF, wouldn't worry about throwing the "off topic" card, hell, you and TLC were already off topic yourselves if you ID the topic from the start of the thread. So, what does RAF say: we go on with the thread as is or do we jump?

Stay right here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In recent year/s, it seems to be only one but some older words no longer are spoken and newer words become spoken. Now, if I were to go back and read all the past threads on SIT'n then I would see if it were foolish for me to even write such things here but since the discussion has become open, especially between knowledgable folks such as TLC and RAF, I feel comfortable asking their opinion on my statements.

Unless you enjoy sticking your fingers in a light socket, and you're happy and more than satisfied with those nearly 50 years of experience with it, I'd suggest being a bit careful drudging up more muck than you can possibly wash off with one rinse. Quite frankly, I don't really think there's much more to say about it aside from what's been covered in the last couple of posts. I only brought it up here to ask Raf a few questions about it that would give me a little better perspective on whether (or how) it may or may not have been considered elsewhere, while avoiding some on the unnecessary turmoil it might stir up elsewhere, and it seems things cut to the chase rather quickly. (check out the video link Steve just posted... lol.)

You like it, believe, and/or benefit from it?

Well then, by all means, don't let anyone stop you or talk you out of it.

(Just be careful trying to convincing others here that it's the real deal, and that you're actually speaking in tongues...)

I don't know if there is a thread here (but there may be) that's more appropriate to ask questions like you did about what you've done or observed for 50 years, but it does seem inappropriate for this thread. (And if there is such a thread, it would still likely be subjected to heavy skepticism and scrutiny anywhere on GSC.)

If it's a personal question that you only want my opinion on, your welcome to PM me.

And if not (or if you have more questions about it), well... there's some 109 page thread somewhere here to start reading through. (no, I didn't. but what I did gave me a headache.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...