waysider

Sometimes you hear what you want to hear, despite what's being said. At 21 years old and struggling financially, I was primed to accept what Wierwille was hawking, even though, in retrospect, I can clearly see how he took John 10:10 out of context, twisted it around and made it say what he wanted it to say. Then, he went to great lengths to support his premise with his own convoluted interpretation of scripture. I'd like to say it would be a lot harder to fool me now but, who really knows?

From that standpoint, there are two questions that would need to be answered. 1.) Are the people currently inhabiting the region descendants of the people referenced in the Bible? (There have been DNA studies that address this question.) 2.) Does the current geography coincide with historical records? ( I don't know where to begin with this question.)

This sounds more like an invitation to a political debate than a discussion of doctrinal matters.

Musically speaking, you don't need minor chords to play the blues nor will playing minor chords make something the blues. There is plenty of blues played with major chords and plenty of classical music played with minor chords. The concept that TWI presented is a disconnect from reality. Philosophically speaking, the blues, as a musical genre, is intended to make you feel better, not worse. It's another example of how TWI held itself forth as an authority on a subject it didn't understand. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100108/full/news.2010.3.html

"Johnston believed Navajo answered the military requirement for an undecipherable code because Navajo is an unwritten language of extreme complexity. Its syntax and tonal qualities, not to mention dialects, make it unintelligible to anyone without extensive exposure and training." ............................................................................ What we see here is that it had syntax and complexity (structure). That the syntax and structure were virtually unknown does not negate their existence.. Phrased a bit differently: They didn't understand it's structure but acknowledged its existence.

Actors never want to admit there's something they can't do. I think that's one of the things that made Joey Tribbiani's character so funny and gave rise to so many crazy scenarios. Joey, can you ride a horse? Sure. Joey, can you ice skate? Sure. Joey, can you pilot the space shuttle? uhmmm.....Sure.

They were owned by Hostess and have closed up shop as well, according to news reports I have seen.

Someone else will revive them. If the demand is there, someone will supply it.

Sounds like a plan. I'm not trying to dispute anything. I'm just trying to understand the essence of what's being said. (I think my reading skills "ain't what they used to be.")

I must be dense. The context seems to suggest that "Fundamentalist" is a blanket term for a group that encompasses Lutheran, Baptist, Reformed, other Protestants. What am I missing?

Lutherans are fundamentalists? When did this happen?

Using that as a criteria, I don't see how anyone could make a definitive pronouncment on the previously mentioned "muck and mire" example.

If a speaker can "inject" those words, why should we assume he can't inject others? And, how are we to sort out which words are "injected" and which are not?

"Where is the benefit?" I believe we can extrapolate somewhat of an answer to that from Newberg's study. According to the findings, part of the brain relaxes and frees itself from the encumbrance of critical thinking. I liken that to relaxing in an easy chair after a long, grueling day of physical work. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so...unless you allow yourself to set unrealistic expectations for it. "How does TIP and Prophesy work?" It's really quite simple. You already have a framework of what sorts of things can and can't be said. These are things that you hear frequently repeated in meetings and teachings. (Ex: God is with you, God loves you, stay your mind on the word, etc.) You know what it's supposed to look/sound like because you've been presented with lots of examples in classes, twig fellowships, branch meetings and so forth. (culturalization) Have you ever been to a campfire event where someone makes up a scary story? I think the same mental facilities come into play. Try this. Take the following lead-in and expand it out for a few more sentences: "It was a cold and rainy night and we found ourselves headed down a dark and narrow road. Just as we turned hard into a sharp corner to the right,__________________________________.

Ya know, the moon could fall out of the sky tonight and flatten my neighbor's potting shed. It's possible.....but not very likely.

SIT has no code. Ergo, SIT is not a language. Edit: Someone could prove me wrong by simply exposing and defining the code.

What is language? language A system for communicating. Written languages use symbols (that is, characters) to build words. The entire set of words is the language's vocabulary. The ways in which the words can be meaningfully combined is defined by the language's syntax and grammar. The actual meaning of words and combinations of words is defined by the language's semantics. SOURCE ........................................................ Let's examine the key points, shall we? A system for communicating.....There can be no communication if there is no system. SIT lacks a system. The ways in which the words can be meaningfully combined is defined by the language's syntax and grammar....As there is no syntax or grammar involved in SIT, it follows suit that the words cannot be meaningfully combined. The actual meaning of words and combinations of words is defined by the language's semantics....As SIT, the alleged language, has no defined semantics, the words and combinations of words have no actual meaning. To make a short story long, SIT is not a language(s)

Like ? :B)

"glossa has some similarities and some differences with natural languages". Yes, that's true. Then again, you could say the same of a comparison of elephants and jelly beans

What is it you think I don't understand?

First century: People hear languages they understand and interpret expound on them for people who don't understand them. Today: People hear "languages" they DON"T understand and "interpret" them for other people who also don't understand them. Am I sensing a discrepancy here? ...................................................... Is that more what you had in mind?

Ahh, yes. Interpretation. Who is able to interpret something that they don't understand?

Forget Hockett. Here's the essence of what Samarin said, according to your post: "Glossas, by this standard, are not human languages, primarily because they really are not systems of communication. They are not characterized by semanticity (7), arbitrariness (8), displacement (10), prevarification (14), and reflexiveness (15)". .................................................................. Oh, but wait. When people speak in tongues, sounds come out of their mouths. Likewise, when people speak in a known language, sounds come out of their mouths. Therefore speaking in tongues is synonymous with language. Do we really need to reexamine why this is a fallacy? (Hint: It constitutes a false conclusion)