Actually, you would know because you produce a language. Just like you know you've healed someone because they're healed. Just like you know you've moved the mountain because the mountains not in the same place anymore. Stop trying to make an objective testable statement into something that is subjective and untestable. It is intellectually dishonest.
Speaking in tongues was not simply "the icing on the cake", it was one of THE cornerstone beliefs of Way theology. It set us apart from mainstream Christianity. The manifestations were the high point of every twig meeting because they established the event as being sanctioned by God. Followers invested heavily in its "reality". Were there Christians that didn't speak in tongues? (I'm using past tense because we're talking about our past involvement.) Of course there were. We considered them to be weak and ineffectual because they lacked a direct connection. WE WERE SPIRITUAL ELITISTS!. Without SIT (and the law of believing) as a major part of our identity we were just another one of countless Bible study groups.That's why it's hard for people to see it for what it is. (IMO)
You seem to think I am incapable of discussing this without going on the attack. You, whose first post directed at me was an assault on my character for which you have not apologized. That's calling hypocrisy right there. And then you constantly divert from the discussion topic, which is questioning SIT, and constantly make it about what you think is wrong with Raf, which, by the way, no one f-ing asked you.
I know people who work in movie theaters who don't project that much.
I had thought for a time people who'd never heard SIT would be impressed. Isn't that why we're trying to get them to TWIG? To be wowed by what we take for granted?
. . . what? . . . THAT didn't impress you? . . . I must have kalyunta'd when I should have lo shunta'd. . . . yeah, THAT's the problem . . .
You seem to think I am incapable of discussing this without going on the attack. You, whose first post directed at me was an assault on my character for which you have not apologized. That's calling hypocrisy right there. And then you constantly divert from the discussion topic, which is questioning SIT, and constantly make it about what you think is wrong with Raf, which, by the way, no one f-ing asked you.
I know people who work in movie theaters who don't project that much.
Going back to the original topic, you are asking for evidence that isn't required by anyone in the bible on SIT. There is nothing in the bible to indicate that you have to prove you are speaking in a language to know you are speaking in tongues. There is no test at all for any spiritual gifts in the bible. So you are asking for something that the bible does not ask, and is quite unreasonable. But it all goes back to the atheist agenda of sitting back and saying God doesn't exist because theres no proof, and I'd love to know what you would say to the atheist when you were a believer who would question why you believe if there is no proof. I don't believe speaking in tongues has to be a proven language or have the same rules that all languages have. But if thats what you believe thats fine but it doesn't prove SIT is impossible today.
I had thought for a time people who'd never heard SIT would be impressed. Isn't that why we're trying to get them to TWIG? To be wowed by what we take for granted?
. . . what? . . . THAT didn't impress you? . . . I must have kalyunta'd when I should have lo shunta'd. . . . yeah, THAT's the problem . . .
And that was why we had practice sessions.... to enhance our theatrical presentation. The more you practiced, the better you got at delivering a persuasive presentation.
I had thought for a time people who'd never heard SIT would be impressed. Isn't that why we're trying to get them to TWIG? To be wowed by what we take for granted?
. . . what? . . . THAT didn't impress you? . . . I must have kalyunta'd when I should have lo shunta'd. . . . yeah, THAT's the problem . . .
I don't think SIT is impressive to anyone who doesn't believe it is possible or believe in what the bible says about it. If I am christian who does not speak in tongues but heard about it and believe it has power behind it then I would be impressed by people who can do it. However if I am a person who knows nothing about SIT or doesn't believe it has any relevance then it wouldn't be impressive.
There is no test at all for any spiritual gifts in the bible. So you are asking for something that the bible does not ask, and is quite unreasonable.
I don't find it unreasonable. There is nothing in the Bible that asks for proof of Gifts of Healing, either. It seems rather silly, though, to proclaim it has taking place when the malady in question remains painfully observable. Just because the Bible doesn't ask for a claim to be tested doesn't absolve it from common sense scrutiny.
Actually, you would know because you produce a language. Just like you know you've healed someone because they're healed. Just like you know you've moved the mountain because the mountains not in the same place anymore. Stop trying to make an objective testable statement into something that is subjective and untestable. It is intellectually dishonest.
Producing a language - which isn't understood, btw - is a benefit to be compared to healing or moving a mountain? That's just plain nuts!
Who do you suppose benefits from that? How can that be? If you seriously want to get "intellectually honest," then do so, and really think about what you just said...
I am asking for evidence that isnt required in the Bible on SIT. You are correct. BUT, i am asking fir evidence that is the natural consequence of the Biblical claim.
If I had a fever, and you claimed to use the gift of healing to deliver me, and an hour later I still had a fever, and the next day I still had a fever, then you could reasonably that your "healing" didn't work. It wouldn't prove anything other than you were mistaken when you said you healed me.
The Biblical claim on SIT is languages. It doesn't have to "require" a test. It's a testable claim. Why are you so sure the Bible means what it doesn't say (that a glossa is not a glossa)? Why are you so sure that you won't produce a language when the Bible says you will?
It's not about the "atheist agenda." I could agree with you right now that there is a God, it's Yahweh, who raised Jesus from the dead and who is always holy just and good, and it would not change the fact that the SIT you produce is not a language and therefore not Biblical SIT.
Of course, it's much easier for you to claim an atheist agenda than it is to admit that you're faking it exactly how I've outlined. It's a non sequitur though. Whether I'm an atheist or WordWolf is a Christian or we switched places tomorrow, you're still babbling nonsense when the Bible says you should be producing a language, and therefore whatever you're doing, however nice it makes you feel, it's not Biblical SIT.
Producing a language - which isn't understood, btw - is a benefit to be compared to healing or moving a mountain? That's just plain nuts!
Who do you suppose benefits from that? How can that be? If you seriously want to get "intellectually honest," then do so, and really think about what you just said...
No, Dr. Carson, the point I was making is that it's a testable claim. Get intellectually honest: you knew that and you're just trolling.
I am asking for evidence that isnt required in the Bible on SIT. You are correct. BUT, i am asking fir evidence that is the natural consequence of the Biblical claim.
If I had a fever, and you claimed to use the gift of healing to deliver me, and an hour later I still had a fever, and the next day I still had a fever, then you could reasonably that your "healing" didn't work. It wouldn't prove anything other than you were mistaken when you said you healed me.
The Biblical claim on SIT is languages. It doesn't have to "require" a test. It's a testable claim. Why are you so sure the Bible means what it doesn't say (that a glossa is not a glossa)? Why are you so sure that you won't produce a language when the Bible says you will?
It's not about the "atheist agenda." I could agree with you right now that there is a God, it's Yahweh, who raised Jesus from the dead and who is always holy just and good, and it would not change the fact that the SIT you produce is not a language and therefore not Biblical SIT.
Of course, it's much easier for you to claim an atheist agenda than it is to admit that you're faking it exactly how I've outlined. It's a non sequitur though. Whether I'm an atheist or WordWolf is a Christian or we switched places tomorrow, you're still babbling nonsense when the Bible says you should be producing a language, and therefore whatever you're doing, however nice it makes you feel, it's not Biblical SIT.
So you think paul was producing a language when he spoke in tongues and everyone in corinth was producing a language as well, and that he wants everyone who speaks in tongues to produce a language? We don't know what pauls tongues sounded like, we don't know what the tongues sounded like on the day of pentecost. We have no way of verifying if what someone is doing today is the same as what was done then. And it also brings the question if the epistles were written to people of today, why would paul say he wishes we would do something that is impossible to do now?
So its not adding up either paul is telling us to do something we can't do or people can still do it and your requirement of it being a testable language is not possible.
I think Paul "was producing a language" because he said he was. Tgat was his claim. Glossa. Language. Not babble. Glossa.
If he meant babble he would have said babble.
Would you like to review the scriptures on glossa again? We've done it a few times. I'm game.
To think that Paul wasn't talking about languages when he wrote I would tgat you all spoke in languages strikes me as odd, at the very least. I don't see how it can be defended reasonably, Biblically, both. Unless you want words to be meaningless as a form of communication, to borrow a phrase.
I think Paul "was producing a language" because he said he was. Tgat was his claim. Glossa. Language. Not babble. Glossa.
If he meant babble he would have said babble.
Would you like to review the scriptures on glossa again? We've done it a few times. I'm game.
To think that Paul wasn't talking about languages when he wrote I would tgat you all spoke in languages strikes me as odd, at the very least. I don't see how it can be defended reasonably, Biblically, both. Unless you want words to be meaningless as a form of communication, to borrow a phrase.
So when he said he wants us to speak in tongues is he asking us to do something impossible today?
I love how it being a testable claim is now MY requirement. Do you not see the irony? I'm the only one in this debate taking the Bible at its word while you struggle to make it not say what it clearly says and then blame ME for expecting it to live up to its implications.
It's almost like I'm the believer here and you're the skeptics? You should jump at the opportunity to prove faith in the Word will deliver the promise of the Word.
But you don't believe that any more than I do. That's why you have to demonize me and discredit me. Because that makes your babbling a genuine manifestation.
I love how it being a testable claim is now MY requirement. Do you not see the irony? I'm the only one in this debate taking the Bible at its word while you struggle to make it not say what it clearly says and then blame ME for expecting it to live up to its implications.
It's almost like I'm the believer here and you're the skeptics? You should jump at the opportunity to prove faith in the Word will deliver the promise of the Word.
But you don't believe tgat any more than I do. That's why you have to demonize me and discredit me. Because that makes your babbling a genuine manifestation.
So when he said he wants us to speak in tongues is he asking us to do something impossible today?
Assuming the Bible to be true, no. Maybe he wasn't talking to you. Maybe he was, but you're so enthralled with the counterfeit that you stopped searching for the genuine. Or maybe you're really producing languages but you're so afraid the atheist is right that you won't seek to prove it even though it's a clear promise in the Word.
So when he said he wants us to speak in tongues is he asking us to do something impossible today?
This is begging for a discussion of dispensationalism and chronology. Not an entirely bad subject to discuss but very much out of place in this discussion.
This is begging for a discussion of dispensationalism and chronology. Not an entirely bad subject to discuss but very much out of place in this discussion.
I don't think it is simply because the topic is about SIT. And if paul is not talking to us when he says he wishes we speak in tongues then thats very relevant to this topic clearly. If tongues is something that just isn't possible today that is relevant, and it is why we need to know if paul was talking to just corinth or to the whole body of christ not just then but in its entirety. So if paul was only talking to corinith and not people of today then that would mean SIT is impossible today. So it is very important to bring up that to this current discussion.
I don't think it is simply because the topic is about SIT. And if paul is not talking to us when he says he wishes we speak in tongues then thats very relevant to this topic clearly. If tongues is something that just isn't possible today that is relevant, and it is why we need to know if paul was talking to just corinth or to the whole body of christ not just then but in its entirety. So if paul was only talking to corinith and not people of today then that would mean SIT is impossible today. So it is very important to bring up that to this current discussion.
I never said it wasn't important. However, it's a subject that should be (and has been) discussed independently and on its own merit because it will inevitably extend beyond the scope of the subject at hand. My suggestion is to start a separate thread on it or search for one that has already taken place.
Well whats the answer you guys were part of the way, and have spent way more time researching the bible than I couldve possibly, is SIT possible today or not. Was paul talking to the church even today or just people of his time? If the answer is SIT is impossible then i guess i've been faking this whole time eh.
If I'm right about SIT AND Christianity is true, then Christians need to decide the consequences on their understanding of scripture. I've already outlined three possibilities: I'm right, SIT is not available. I'm right, SIT IS available but what we did ain't it. I'm wrong but no one's proved it.
I'm not asking you to join me in believing the Bible is not true. The way I see it, that leaves you with three choices. The fourth, in my opinion, is to redefine Biblical SIT. You see how much patience I have with that.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
95
23
22
27
Popular Days
Mar 23
59
Mar 14
36
Mar 20
32
Mar 13
16
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 95 posts
WordWolf 23 posts
waysider 22 posts
chockfull 27 posts
Popular Days
Mar 23 2017
59 posts
Mar 14 2017
36 posts
Mar 20 2017
32 posts
Mar 13 2017
16 posts
Popular Posts
Bolshevik
The purpose of Speaking in Tongues is to loosen people minds, or, reduce critical thinking enough that they will accept TWI doctrine and direction. It aids in building non-coherency. It is a sig
Bolshevik
I had thought for a time people who'd never heard SIT would be impressed. Isn't that why we're trying to get them to TWIG? To be wowed by what we take for granted? . . . what? . . . THAT didn'
Raf
It's almost impossible to believe this is an honest question. What good would it do to objectively prove the supernatural? He seriously asked that question. First off, it would win the
Raf
Actually, you would know because you produce a language. Just like you know you've healed someone because they're healed. Just like you know you've moved the mountain because the mountains not in the same place anymore. Stop trying to make an objective testable statement into something that is subjective and untestable. It is intellectually dishonest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Speaking in tongues was not simply "the icing on the cake", it was one of THE cornerstone beliefs of Way theology. It set us apart from mainstream Christianity. The manifestations were the high point of every twig meeting because they established the event as being sanctioned by God. Followers invested heavily in its "reality". Were there Christians that didn't speak in tongues? (I'm using past tense because we're talking about our past involvement.) Of course there were. We considered them to be weak and ineffectual because they lacked a direct connection. WE WERE SPIRITUAL ELITISTS!. Without SIT (and the law of believing) as a major part of our identity we were just another one of countless Bible study groups.That's why it's hard for people to see it for what it is. (IMO)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If it walks like free vocalizations and talks like free vocalizations, odds are, it's free vocalization.
You can say it's a duck, but it's not quacking, bro!
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mr. Confused:
You seem to think I am incapable of discussing this without going on the attack. You, whose first post directed at me was an assault on my character for which you have not apologized. That's calling hypocrisy right there. And then you constantly divert from the discussion topic, which is questioning SIT, and constantly make it about what you think is wrong with Raf, which, by the way, no one f-ing asked you.
I know people who work in movie theaters who don't project that much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I had thought for a time people who'd never heard SIT would be impressed. Isn't that why we're trying to get them to TWIG? To be wowed by what we take for granted?
. . . what? . . . THAT didn't impress you? . . . I must have kalyunta'd when I should have lo shunta'd. . . . yeah, THAT's the problem . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImLikeSoConfused
Going back to the original topic, you are asking for evidence that isn't required by anyone in the bible on SIT. There is nothing in the bible to indicate that you have to prove you are speaking in a language to know you are speaking in tongues. There is no test at all for any spiritual gifts in the bible. So you are asking for something that the bible does not ask, and is quite unreasonable. But it all goes back to the atheist agenda of sitting back and saying God doesn't exist because theres no proof, and I'd love to know what you would say to the atheist when you were a believer who would question why you believe if there is no proof. I don't believe speaking in tongues has to be a proven language or have the same rules that all languages have. But if thats what you believe thats fine but it doesn't prove SIT is impossible today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
And that was why we had practice sessions.... to enhance our theatrical presentation. The more you practiced, the better you got at delivering a persuasive presentation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImLikeSoConfused
I don't think SIT is impressive to anyone who doesn't believe it is possible or believe in what the bible says about it. If I am christian who does not speak in tongues but heard about it and believe it has power behind it then I would be impressed by people who can do it. However if I am a person who knows nothing about SIT or doesn't believe it has any relevance then it wouldn't be impressive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I don't find it unreasonable. There is nothing in the Bible that asks for proof of Gifts of Healing, either. It seems rather silly, though, to proclaim it has taking place when the malady in question remains painfully observable. Just because the Bible doesn't ask for a claim to be tested doesn't absolve it from common sense scrutiny.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Producing a language - which isn't understood, btw - is a benefit to be compared to healing or moving a mountain? That's just plain nuts!
Who do you suppose benefits from that? How can that be? If you seriously want to get "intellectually honest," then do so, and really think about what you just said...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I am asking for evidence that isnt required in the Bible on SIT. You are correct. BUT, i am asking fir evidence that is the natural consequence of the Biblical claim.
If I had a fever, and you claimed to use the gift of healing to deliver me, and an hour later I still had a fever, and the next day I still had a fever, then you could reasonably that your "healing" didn't work. It wouldn't prove anything other than you were mistaken when you said you healed me.
The Biblical claim on SIT is languages. It doesn't have to "require" a test. It's a testable claim. Why are you so sure the Bible means what it doesn't say (that a glossa is not a glossa)? Why are you so sure that you won't produce a language when the Bible says you will?
It's not about the "atheist agenda." I could agree with you right now that there is a God, it's Yahweh, who raised Jesus from the dead and who is always holy just and good, and it would not change the fact that the SIT you produce is not a language and therefore not Biblical SIT.
Of course, it's much easier for you to claim an atheist agenda than it is to admit that you're faking it exactly how I've outlined. It's a non sequitur though. Whether I'm an atheist or WordWolf is a Christian or we switched places tomorrow, you're still babbling nonsense when the Bible says you should be producing a language, and therefore whatever you're doing, however nice it makes you feel, it's not Biblical SIT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No, Dr. Carson, the point I was making is that it's a testable claim. Get intellectually honest: you knew that and you're just trolling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImLikeSoConfused
So you think paul was producing a language when he spoke in tongues and everyone in corinth was producing a language as well, and that he wants everyone who speaks in tongues to produce a language? We don't know what pauls tongues sounded like, we don't know what the tongues sounded like on the day of pentecost. We have no way of verifying if what someone is doing today is the same as what was done then. And it also brings the question if the epistles were written to people of today, why would paul say he wishes we would do something that is impossible to do now?
So its not adding up either paul is telling us to do something we can't do or people can still do it and your requirement of it being a testable language is not possible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think Paul "was producing a language" because he said he was. Tgat was his claim. Glossa. Language. Not babble. Glossa.
If he meant babble he would have said babble.
Would you like to review the scriptures on glossa again? We've done it a few times. I'm game.
To think that Paul wasn't talking about languages when he wrote I would tgat you all spoke in languages strikes me as odd, at the very least. I don't see how it can be defended reasonably, Biblically, both. Unless you want words to be meaningless as a form of communication, to borrow a phrase.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImLikeSoConfused
So when he said he wants us to speak in tongues is he asking us to do something impossible today?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I love how it being a testable claim is now MY requirement. Do you not see the irony? I'm the only one in this debate taking the Bible at its word while you struggle to make it not say what it clearly says and then blame ME for expecting it to live up to its implications.
It's almost like I'm the believer here and you're the skeptics? You should jump at the opportunity to prove faith in the Word will deliver the promise of the Word.
But you don't believe that any more than I do. That's why you have to demonize me and discredit me. Because that makes your babbling a genuine manifestation.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
ImLikeSoConfused
I just asked a simple question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Assuming the Bible to be true, no. Maybe he wasn't talking to you. Maybe he was, but you're so enthralled with the counterfeit that you stopped searching for the genuine. Or maybe you're really producing languages but you're so afraid the atheist is right that you won't seek to prove it even though it's a clear promise in the Word.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
This is begging for a discussion of dispensationalism and chronology. Not an entirely bad subject to discuss but very much out of place in this discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImLikeSoConfused
I don't think it is simply because the topic is about SIT. And if paul is not talking to us when he says he wishes we speak in tongues then thats very relevant to this topic clearly. If tongues is something that just isn't possible today that is relevant, and it is why we need to know if paul was talking to just corinth or to the whole body of christ not just then but in its entirety. So if paul was only talking to corinith and not people of today then that would mean SIT is impossible today. So it is very important to bring up that to this current discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If I'm right, then you need to rethink what Paul meant. If I'm right. Why are you skipping to that part? Why not prove I'm wrong?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I never said it wasn't important. However, it's a subject that should be (and has been) discussed independently and on its own merit because it will inevitably extend beyond the scope of the subject at hand. My suggestion is to start a separate thread on it or search for one that has already taken place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImLikeSoConfused
Well whats the answer you guys were part of the way, and have spent way more time researching the bible than I couldve possibly, is SIT possible today or not. Was paul talking to the church even today or just people of his time? If the answer is SIT is impossible then i guess i've been faking this whole time eh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If I'm right about SIT AND Christianity is true, then Christians need to decide the consequences on their understanding of scripture. I've already outlined three possibilities: I'm right, SIT is not available. I'm right, SIT IS available but what we did ain't it. I'm wrong but no one's proved it.
I'm not asking you to join me in believing the Bible is not true. The way I see it, that leaves you with three choices. The fourth, in my opinion, is to redefine Biblical SIT. You see how much patience I have with that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.