Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site stat-l Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:Pucc-I:Stat-L:rsk From: rsk@stat-l (Rich Kulawiec) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.flame Subject: Re: Kulawiec on Sargent on speaking in tongues Message-ID: <198@stat-l> Date: Wed, 21-Nov-84 17:29:53 EST Article-I.D.: stat-l.198 Posted: Wed Nov 21 17:29:53 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 25-Nov-84 03:33:37 EST References: <231@pyuxd.UUCP> <1469@pucc-h>, <184@stat-l> <1489@pucc-h>, <191@stat-l> <1503@pucc-h> Organization: Purdue University Lines: 115 This is not a flame. Rather, it is a substitute for a tactical nuclear weapon, which is an awful bother to carry about, doesn't fit through 1200 baud modems very well, and tends to cause a large amount of irration to those in the general vicinity of the target area. >>> = Sargent >> = Kulawiec > = Sargent >> Can we talk about standards of proof for a minute? If you tell me >> that you dropped a magtape in your office yesterday, and it hit the floor, >> I'll probably take your word for it, because (a) it's repeatable on demand, >> (b) I've seen it happen before, (c) it's a (relatively) common occurrence, >> attributable to the laws of physics. If, on the other hand, you tell me >> that the Math-Science building was upside down at 8 o'clock this morning, >> I probably won't believe you, because none of (a) thru (c) apply. I think >> "speaking in tongues" is closer to this second example, and thus I will not >> take your word for it. > 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; it's just not attributable > to the so-called "laws" (actually only observed regularities) of physics. You missed the point. 1. You *believe* you can repeat it. 2. You *believe* you've seen it before. 3. You *believe* it's not attributable to the laws of physics. You also have a vested interest in *believing* 1-3 because it goes along with your world view; this is just fine by me, but don't expect to convince the rest of us (i.e. anyone who does not share your view of the way things work around here) by merely pointing out that "speaking in tongues" works in your world view. As I thought I pointed out, the standard of proof is relative. >>> You are only hurting yourself by cutting yourself off from the Source of >>> life due to your cynical, doubting, denying attitude. >> Feh. I've said nothing about the "Source of life", whatever that is, and >> I really don't think I'm hurting myself. I call it "keeping an open mind". >> I'm quite ready to be convinced; but blanket statements won't do the trick. > 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. Pity, I think, is much more appropriate than flaming. First of all, you don't appear to be able to read; a true tragedy. It would occasionally be nice if you would try very hard to read and understand articles before replying to them. Secondly, I would like to know if you *really* believe that the scientific method/heritage/facts/and-everything-else is really a propaganda ploy by this satan character. This is what you *seem* to be saying. (Note that I did not *assume* you believed that way; I *asked*. You should try this sometime.) Third, look at what you've just said. "Rich doesn't believe Jeff can speak in tongues as the result of divine intervention, THEREFORE Rich has been fooled by satan?" This is a certainly a novel approach. And fourth, the statement "you deny anything that doesn't fit..." is utterly without merit. There are a large number of things that I have never denied that "don't fit"; you just haven't bothered to ask. I'll do the speaking for myself, thank you. > Whew.... That felt good. It was a little hot, but it's true. I'm so happy for you. It must be nice to have something to feel good about, that is, besides gloating over the misguidedness of all of us fornicating-atheist-drunk-drugged-communist-satanic folks. On the other hand, we don't get to feel good about that; we just feel good about being fornicating-atheist--well, you get the idea. > 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. This, Jeff, is propaganda. > 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 did not state in any article in this series that I refuse to believe in a god, or God, if you like. In fact, this entire discussion is unrelated to *my* belief or lack or belief in a deity...this discussion is about your claim that you can speak in tongues as a result of divine intervention. My seven-step outline was a suggested method for you to prove what you say-- --to me. Period. I'm sure other folks would have different criteria. "Probably more hope..." You can take your patronizing attitude and shove it up, over, and sideways. I'm quite happy with my philosophy, religion, and lifestyle, and certainly seem to get more out of life than certain snivelling neurotic illiterates with superiority complexes. > 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. How marvelous for him; but irrelevant to this discussion. Do you have C. S. Lewis on the brain, or what? -- Rich Kulawiec @ Purdue University Computing Center { decvax, ihnp4, uiucdcs } !pur-ee!rsk & { decwrl, hplabs, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk