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