Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site trwrba.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!jnelson
From: jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Kulawiec on Sargent on speaking in tongues
Message-ID: <1162@trwrba.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 8-Dec-84 14:52:53 EST
Article-I.D.: trwrba.1162
Posted: Sat Dec  8 14:52:53 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Dec-84 02:10:39 EST
References: <231@pyuxd.UUCP> <1469@pucc-h>, <184@stat-l> <1489@pucc-h>, <191@stat-l>, <1503@pucc-h>
Organization: TRW EDS, Redondo Beach, CA
Lines: 89


	Speaking in tongues is repeatable on demand (perhaps not with
	the same words, but the same general phenomenon), I've seen it
	before (in others as well as in myself), and it is a fairly
	common occurrence;

So are many forms of insanity and mental illness... repeatability only
repeats the outward symptoms and not proof of the inward cause.

	it's just not attributable to the so-called "laws" (actually
	only observed regularities) of physics.

People who speak in tongues no more defy physical laws then do those
people with multiple or split personalities.  If you're going to argue
these points at least make sure your arguments hold up to the test.
Arguments that cannot be faithfully defended are self-serving and prove
only your alignment.

	OPEN MIND???  I know I'll get flamed for this one, but boy,
	have you been fooled by one of Satan's greatest masterpieces of
	propaganda!  You deny anything that doesn't fit into your tidy
	little limited stuffy boxes of scientific rigor (mortis), and
	you call that keeping an open mind?  You're not hurting
	yourself; you're suffocating yourself inside your scientific
	prejudices.

The same may be said of those who view the Bible as the greatest masterpiece
of history ever written.  Christians deny anything that doesn't fit into their
tidy little limited stuffy boxes of religious rigor (mortis) and dogma.

You see?  The shoe fits on the other foot too.  There is nothing
prejudicial about wanting to know the truth and thus taking ones time
and examining ALL of the alternatives and possibilities before making a
conclusion.  Granted this regime of thinking can be taken too far, but
it is irresponsible to claim that (what can be labeled as) the
scientific approach is propaganda.

Not ONE of you has the guts to admit the flaws in your arguments or the
inadeuqacies of either of your positions.  How the hell do you expect
to ever attain any true knowledge with such closed (and pridefull?)
attitudes as these?  Christ advocated two-way DISCUSSION and helpfull
INTERCHANGE, not this confrontational choosing of sides and beat the
other guy's head in attitude so prevelent on net.religion.

If religionists are going to claim they have "proof" for their claims
then they should put up of shut up.  Claims of Satanic manipulation
will REMAIN claims without SOME sort of objective testimony or
evidence to back them up.  Now you people know very well that such
statements are going to be disputed for their lack of evidence or
credible proof.

	The way most people are convinced of Christ's power is not by
	scientific demonstration, but rather by submitting themselves
	to Him.  He who loses his life shall find it, for the Source of
	life, God the Creator Himself, shall give him a new one.

But the problem is that few people will believe what you say simply
because you are uttering the contents of the Bible.  Relience on the
Bible as a source of proof is one of the causes for this hopeless
net.religion.conflict.

We all know what the Bible says.  Show us WHY it is the truth!

	Your seven-step outline of suggested method of proof seems to
	show your die-hard, fight-to-the-last refusal to believe in
	God.  There's probably more hope for you than for others not so
	polarized.  I've heard that C.S.  Lewis, once a high-powered
	atheist, wrote in one of his books that he was dragged kicking
	and screaming into the kingdom of God.  Of course, once he got
	there and realized what it was really like, he became one of
	its greatest supporters.

The die-hard method that you refer to is NOT necessarily an attempt to
deny God as Larry Bickford and Ken Nichols continue to assert, but
rather an attempt to VERIFY what anyone with half a brain can read
about in the Bible.  There's nothing wrong with looking for tangible
proof as long as one realizes that he might not find it.  In fact
there's nothing wrong with testimony, as long as its reliable and
responsible.  How can anyone trust the testiment of people long dead or
of those who have read such testiments and then merely reiterated what
has already been said?

"The Truth" is not attained overnight.

Christian testimony on this net never will be believed until some
responsibility and reliable stewardship of any form of truth are proven.


					- John