chockfull

At a certain point, there will be an impasse at the ability to discuss matters that involve faith. This is just logic. Why? Because the major premise in each case is at exact odds - polar opposites. Thus the logic sequence that is produced will similarly be at polar opposite odds. So Raf, I would postulate that there is no trolling at all going on in this thread.

Raf, right here is where you actually spell out fairly accurately the faith dilemma. Can I confirm the supernatural? Who can I confirm or prove it to? Just myself, or the whole world? If I can confirm it to the whole world by proof, then everyone would believe. But they don't. They have to make up their own mind.

What exact Biblical claim are we talking about here? And why is it important? You previously referred to the tower of Babel as a fictional event. I mean if you don't believe in God, and don't believe that He could control languages like that, then how is there any basis for discussion? I mean if there is no God, then of course everybody is making it up, and you won your argument, right?

I'm not critiquing research, honestly. I may have read that word in a study that both of us cited in that thread. But that thread was a while ago, and I don't have a comprehensive list of sources we explored, and it wasn't widespread throughout all of the resources. No, I didn't "really review the research" in any sense. I didn't re-read the 86 page thread, trying to compile sources, prior to engaging in conversation. This is why I am asking. You have been on this thread, started the thread, are pontificating on the thread. I figured since you had such a high interest in this topic that maybe the researchers were on the tip of your tongue or easily accessible in memory where I didn't have to try and look for it in that long thread.

I'm coming from more of this type of perspective. When I was in middle school I realized through Biblical teachings that I needed a savior, that I wasn't strong enough, smart enough, capable enough to take on a world full of evil without God. So I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, asked him to be my lord, and my life changed from that perspective. Part of the change was a new prayer life. Now I pray to someone else, someone wiser, smarter, stronger than me. My Heavenly Father. This is part of how I interact with my Father and say "abba", and this is part of my overall relationship. My brain is not the end all of existence or truth on a matter. Part of this prayer life has developed over time, and prior to the Way. I was not in the Way in middle school or growing up. I joined in college. What I saw there I assumed everyone else was doing what I was, or believed similarly. It never occurred to me to even think people were being inauthentic about it. I helped put on INT classes. One comment on this thread mentioned them. I think the Way's INT class is an abomination. I think their whole approach to manifestations is an abomination. It all smacks of Wierwille faking it on stage at an Oral Roberts convention, the JE Sitles story, and even then maybe VP learned how to fake it real good and teach others. "You move your mouth, your lips, you make the sound". Nobody ever had to cover that kind of detail for me with my private prayer life. But I have all sorts of people with opinions about it. Apparently I have a dragon in my garage that I'm making up along with languages. Who knew? I'm sure someone will be happy to sell me a can of dragon repellent though. Look. I get it. People are disenfranchised with the Way's BS. And false teachings. And heavy-handedness. And child abuse. Me too. Now please excuse me while I take my dragon out for a spin. Airline tickets are getting so damn expensive!!!!!!

Just to clarify cordiality I was not mocking your comments. Obviously you believe them. And you believe that although I don't speak languages with glottal stops, and I'm not familiar with a single vocabulary word in languages with those "phonemes" (BTW - where did you pick up that word? - I'm assuming from one of the studies and that you didn't make the word up but I don't have the source), that somehow I subconsciously learned the sounds somewhere - we don't know where - and that now I am producing them in context that has "aural characteristics" of a language. (Meaning it kind of sounds like one but I have no way of knowing which one it is or if it really is because I don't speak the language). I'm not mocking but from my perspective the logic flow just doesn't even remotely fit reality. And now I have a fictional dragon in my garage too. My day is going downhill already :)

One of the things that confuses me is how both you two have walked back in your mind and logical arguments the fact established that whether or not languages are produced you previously agreed is not provable one way or another, based upon research. Now it's a assumed fact in your argument that it is not. For folks that claim to have science as your main influence and guide, this is puzzling indeed. It does illustrate to me how faith is the center of people's being, though. Your convictions and beliefs about this field taint your view of the facts, and you extol what fits and reject what doesn't fit. Just exactly like fundamentalist Christians do.

I was just waiting for the punchline about "De Nile". But that's probably inappropriate humor.

Your logic has flaws from the major premise. "Every language has a distinct phonemic inventory". Actually many languages with common roots have common sounds they make, (phonemic inventory - your words). For example, romance languages - Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese all possibly share the same or at least very very similar common sounds. As a result, it's easier to understand one if you already understand another. "Allowances made for phonemes the person has encountered" Ha! So now we are dialing back the argument because it doesn't fit to "phonemes the person has encountered" ???? Not just ones associated with the languages they speak? Sorry that still won't fit even my personal experience. If there is a Biblical passage that tells you to expect not to understand this SIT language, then do you think God would be able to supersede silly human attempts to bypass that by analysis? It could be something as simple as shutting down a spiritual connection while you are filming and letting a person babble or something. WW I was addressing this comment " I like you, chockfull, really I do, but your posts on that long thread helped convince me my previous position was wrong. Your approach to the discussion said quite a bit. " This is not me guilt-tripping myself. This is you not owning up to your own words. Even now. Your first bold post contradicts what you are saying in your above post about already having your conclusions drawn. What I read in that research was discourse and discussion on languages, but not checklists. The checklist idea was introduced by both you and Raf, when you are trying to convey your belief that SIT fails to fulfill a checklist of characteristics of language. I found that to be false information, and I found it to slant material I read in a way that the original authors did not slant it. So now for the 3rd time I'm asking you to produce this magical "checklist" that I didn't read. I'll be happy to read it now if I'm wrong. If you can't then we can just agree together that it never existed besides you and Raf making it up and that you and Raf invented a checklist to prove your beliefs.

From reading this thread one perspective I can offer is to examine is good, but from what perspective? I think all have a choice whether they will view things from a positive or negative overall perspective. Is the glass half full? Or is the glass half empty? A glass that is half full is faith. A glass that is half empty is doubt. The struggle between them is wisdom. 'Whaddya mean I was talking bout whether God exists or not. ' I guess it's a matter of perspective. Does God exist in a clear blue mountain sky? Does God exist in the sunrise dew on the flowers? Does God exist in the first breath of a new colt on a sweetgrass plain? Maybe so. Maybe not. Maybe it depends on your perspective.

So here we are performing an exercise of "does your story fit into my pre-determined belief conclusion"? And the answer is yes with a shoehorn? Yes all of the above could apply. However, the story as narrated to me was speech the individual determined to be well beyond any possible native English vocabulary the speaker had, and remarkably contrasting to any language knowlege in normal conversation outside the incident. Meaning they tried to speak English to the man and he could not converse without an interpreter. Could he secretly have hidden all this and have been in cahoots with the interpreter. Sure. Or a 100 other possibilities. The "no man understandeth" - typically Pentecost violates this right? by a miraculous act?

Yeah. Sorry I just get sick to my stomach when thinking about calling one of those 2 up to get more detail. I just can't do it, don't want to open up old history. Even if they would talk to me which is probably a no.

But yes among the many many more things that I can not corroborate with details about the story. But hey I bet you could email the new Prez JYdL and get a much better firsthand account - he undoubtedly knows of it.

Utilizing translators...

The country was called Zaire then. It now is the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). I think the men were traveling to and from the Adv. Class and the incident took place in a home fellowship around their travel route - not at the class in Ohio. That's all the detail I remember of this story. I just saw a picture of one of the people - a girl - who told the story. I don't have basic corroborating facts of question answers - like - "why were French speakers in an English bible study?" or "was it a English/French bible study?" or "if they got called on to SIT in English, how did they understand to do so?" and "am I sure one didn't know English and fake like VP?" It's not proof. It's not firsthand witness stand testimony reliable.

yeah me too. we were both in a cult that wreaked havoc on our emotions, logic, spirituality, relationships. it's understandable. I'm still damaged and may still not react the best 100% of the time as a result.

Sincerity. I don't even want to use that word after VP. Whatever I do in my shower related to prayer, its done in a vacuum, and has not changed pre-Way, during the Way, or post Way. I act by faith. Whatever is proven is proven only to myself as all belief systems have to be. You are free to make whatever claims about me and my shower you want. True or false.

the meeting was in the US at a home fellowship the Zaire men were attending while visiting. i didn't witness this firsthand. i do believe the credibility of the 2 that told the story.

Wow - so because I committed the sin of defending the truth it is a "tell" and thus SIT is false. How bout you take accountability for your own beliefs and stop trying to guilt trip me that I didn't defend truth well enough when doing so is a sin anyway? I can't defend SIT - I do it by faith. I can't defend point, line and plane in geometry either by the way. B and C - look those points are easily refutable by finding a checklist from one of those authors. I didn't read one where I was selectively skipping parts. I didnt' read one at all.

Secondhand story of mine - was a contingent from Zaire that 2 people I know witnessed - they were men who spoke French and a native African language. Tongues in a manifestation meeting from one of these men were in English, fully formed sentences, made sense. Not just the sounds. Where are they now? DRC - Democratic Republic of Congo. I do not have names for tracing of the DRC men. I am not in contact with the 2 people I mention, as I've left the cult.

So I'm praying in the shower out loud, and the language changes from some italian - ish type sounds to some that are more gutteral like Mandarin but not exactly different sound, and somehow there's a subconscious man in my mind saying "I don't want italian takeout I'm in the mood for Chinese" ? Dude. Even if they did a "phonetic inventory of glossolalia", how could they distinguish between a "spritual" genuine one and a faked one? Actually a "phonetic inventory of glossolalia" sounds a lot like a modern tower of Babel to me. But more power to the inventory takers.

Every single one of those stories is more credible than your global blanket claim that everyone in TWI who spoke in tongues faked it. At least those single accounts have people and facts attached to them.

1. Some sounds no I was not familiar at all with. Later on in life I learned that Chinese languages have pitch variations that go up and down like something from a tongue earlier and the difference totally changes the meaning. Definitely not sounds that I am used to forming in language from my experience. Other times it would all be more sounds that are totally from my language sounds. And not something I would consciously turn on or turn off like "ok today I'm making russian like sounds because I heard Putin newscast".

What did my approach to the discussion say? I don't accept carrying the blame for your decision on my approach. My "approach" from my perspective is that tongues for me is / was / will be faith based. Part of a Christian's private prayer life if they choose. A) Incorrect - the audio recordings analyzed were not of known languages - they did not jump to the conclusion you did there that no actual languages were produced. On the contrary, it is fairly evident to anyone listening that there are some language breakdowns present, like pauses in diction, sentence or comma-like silence interruptions, consonant and vowel formations. They just are not understood. B) The "experts" did not have a checklist whereby if something meets those criteria it is a language. So it is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to present their findings to the negative according to what you now believe, just as it was to use it to "prove" your previous belief on the topic. I just listed 3 or 4 "criteria" of a language in A above, yet that doesn't "prove" a language is spoken any more than it proves no language is spoken. C) Again, you sound like experts have some kind of list of "criteria of a language". None that I read did. Or please feel free to post up factual evidence. You say "it's not noteworty" the language criteria I brought up. Well it is enough of a criteria to distinguish between humans and animal communication, so that is just opinion on your part. "Even an attempt to fake a language should have THAT property". Oh, so now you are an expert in how to fake languages? Well, maybe so I can't tell. What I will say is that someone could probably fake speaking Spanish by mimic to someone that doesn't know Spanish and get away with it. At least to the point where they couldn't "prove" someone wasn't speaking Spanish unless a Spanish speaker could verify / reject. There were several anecdotal accounts different people brought up in that thread about some kind of manifestation meeting where that tongue of the speaker was known to the audience member prior to interpretation. All of those personal accounts were rejected in that thread by you guys. Why? Doesn't line up with your current beliefs, therefore can't accept a secondhand account as proof. The only reefs I see this discussion hitting is what I just pointed out. I'm not going to argue back and forth the above points with you like on that thread. But they are consistent points of logic that exist there and are there whether or not you acknowledge them.

1. Doesn't stand up to the test of even my own experience. I am a native English speaker, Spanish some - romance languages. Tongues I've heard from my own mouth contain glottal stops, dipthongs, pitch variations that do not match romance languages. 2. thx for clarification.