Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Raf said:

Honestly, if it's just babble, then how is it a manifestation of the spirit?

Fair question.  How would anyone know, except by comparing it to what benefits other manifestations of the spirit produce?

If if walks like a duck, talks like a duck... then in spite of an otherwise unseemly appearance, odds are, it's a duck. 

Edited by TLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 Raf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 . . .

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raf said:

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bolshevik said:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ImLikeSoConfused said:

 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.

Edited by waysider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Raf said:

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TLC said:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raf 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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raf said:

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 Raf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raf said:

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.

I just asked a simple question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ImLikeSoConfused said:

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.

 

Edited by Raf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ImLikeSoConfused said:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, waysider said:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ImLikeSoConfused said:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...