chockfull

Why would you rule out genuine SIT there? I mean I agree with you that he was possessed and the spirit guide likely DID produce a language, then translate it, and then Le Baron identified it. I can't prove that, as Samarin or ANY OTHER LINGUIST did not study the messages that Le Baron wrote down, only read about them. Le Baron could still be lying about it. However, he was a known psychic, and conversations with his "automatism" were present for just about anyone to experience. You see, this is a sample space problem. Any account I bring up that falls short of God performing a miracle right in the scientist's lab and there having the person doing the speaking and the one understanding it both present indefinitely for questioning by anyone who doesn't believe runs into the account being summarily dismissed and it stated "I don't believe it". Other accounts could be genuine SIT, or a faker, or devil spirit possession. No discrimination between them, and the scientists all lump them into the same category. Their categorization is their proof. Their invention of their own terms to describe it - "free vocalization" - that is their proof. I mean, I'm sticking with my own proof. "Free mouthnoiseization". It's an innate human ability. All those guys who claim to be SIT, they are just "free mouthnoising it". And you can't prove they are not. After all, they fit the definition I just made up.

And what does that have to do with anything? Samarin himself could have not included that account on the basis of the source being biased. But he didn't. In fact, he chose the psychic studies as the only ones he DID reference in detail. My challenge to their inclusion is that unless you can PROVE they were faking, you are studying something else, not glossolalia.

Yes the fact that TWI leaders who haven't received revelation from God ever since they sold their soul to be a false prophet and run things by spying, deceit, and informant use is sickening. It was also something I saw in-residence consistently, and saw operated in TWI leadership consistently through decades. And if people want to use that to live life completely by the five senses and reject everything spiritual, then there is absolutely nothing I can do about it, including reason with them. But I'm not going to let them, or fatalistic logic, dictate my faith. There was a movie made about this a while ago, starring Steve Martin, called "Leap of Faith". Steve was a con man working the revival tent scene to make money. He faked everything. Then a little boy got healed in the midst of this, and Martin's character couldn't cope. I guess in the ex-TWI GSC version of this, the boy dies of polio and Steve Martin goes on to bilk millions more? Sorry guys, although I see the dark side of humanity, my faith in God is yet still greater. You guys believe what you want.

Certainly one tactic or approach can be a complete state of unbelief concerning anything supernatural. And unfortunately it is one I encounter far too often among ex-TWI people. The psychological trauma from being in the organization so pervades their entire mind and belief system that to obtain relief the mind utilizes a defense mechanism and summarily rejects anything not based in the senses. Look - the psychics of that day pretty much all described their psychic powers as "spiritual gifts from God". Were they charlatans, were they possessed, or were they a combination of both? I guess you get into the same kind of dilemma there that you do talking about SIT in general. Was it a "genuine" devil spirit, or a "fake" devil spirit? I mean for the sake of this argument to me it would be better to say "who cares?" and remove séances from your sample space just to eliminate the possibility. But I'm finding all sorts of scientific proof related issues with these approaches. You ASSUME your own conclusion that everyone is faking it, thus lump all the occurrences including devil-inspired, God-inspired, faker-inspired under the same label of "free vocalization". I guess my conclusion is that I haven't read an unbiased study of this topic yet.

He must have been quite an exceptional one, then. He convinced a leading psychologist of his time, William James, to submit his account to the Society for Psychic Research and stake his reputation on his conclusion that something spiritual was going on. That is why we can read it today.

Wow - try to hold it together here Raf. I'm not misrepresenting anything you said. I just am asking you questions. Most modern Christians would accept Le Baron's account as possession. Not just the charismatic ones. Yet you are violently reacting and calling me names like gullible. You have to admit, it does lead you to ask questions concerning bias there. So once again, do you believe possession is possible? If so, under what circumstances? Other readers who Raf is not upset at, does this seem like an Inquisition to you?

Wow. That's awesome. In the very least he will find companionship with others that have a similar experience with the disease, and an ongoing membership in a group that helps them prove they beat the disease.

The account itself did not have the entire conversation in another language recorded. By Le Baron's account, he wrote "some of the terms" down on a piece of paper, then looked them up later to identify the language. I don't believe Samarin ever saw the terms recognized to corroborate that they were or were not known languages. OK, for reals. Let me ask you this - do you believe that there are really spirit beings out there that are devil spirits? Do you believe it is possible to be possessed? You know, I'm really glad we are having this part of the conversation. It is showing a side to your spiritual beliefs that obviously is influencing your position that I never identified before, and neither did other readers if I had to guess. It's good that it's coming out.

Wow. Le Baron, who describes his experience as talking to a "psychic automatism", you are saying "did not operate a devil spirit". And you're not saying "in my opinion". So this is proven, right? Have you actually read the interaction? It reads like a conversation back and forth between two people in English. Le Baron's account, which was written. Him talking to his "psychic automatism", and it answering him back. Then on one day, it changed to being another language, but the automatism translated it into English for Le Baron. He wrote down the words later, and said they were from two known languages. This type of experience is the polar opposite of anyone saying "lo shanta" in a prayer meeting. I believe this account shows Le Baron had a spirit guide, which was devil spirit. It was one he was used to having a conversation with as a separate and distinct entity from himself. But believe what you will. I suppose the rejection of ALL THINGS in the spirit realm is one way to deal with post TWI integration. Too narrow. There was a conversation back and forth between two "people". It was in English. Then one morning it was largely in another language, except after a while the other "person" translated it. The first person (Le Baron) wrote down some of the words, not the entire messages. He then identified the languages involved. However, this experience was different than modern accounts of glossolalia, and Samarin notes this in the opening p. 50 of the article. Why? It's highly likely that they were not born again. I am, so labeling an experience conversing with a spirit guide to me is a lot different than SIT. I don't have the bejeezus frightened out of me. Even if I was there in the room, I'd note it, and label the information coming from the conversation as questionable as to it's contribution to my overall well-being. I guess I won't recount to you the time I had going to a séance with a girl friend of mine, sitting quietly in a chair and SIT to myself without saying a word, and having the medium go absolutely bat-$h1t crazy saying she couldn't read anything. Her German shepherd was pacing back and forth whining at me. Then we left, looked at each other, and said "wow, that was weird". Now from a spiritual perspective, her dog housed her spirit guide, the "airwaves" between them was disturbed by God via me spiritually, and the result was clouded. Well, if you don't want to acknowledge or deal with things in the spirit realm, I guess I see how you would have that perspective. Maybe Samarin too.

It's a problem that many of the splinter groups face. Their ordination certificate is filed at the state, and the supporting org no longer supports that. So the splinter groups have some issues, and TWI communicates to the state the ordination is no longer supported by the org. The fact that you can get ordained by sending in two Cheerios box top pictures on the Internet nowadays kind of makes that a moot point. And also, the Cheerios offer version will probably make you a whole lot less of an @$$h0l3 too.

Socrates told Plato at the beginning of their philosophical discussion "if you are I are going to converse together, we must first define our terms". If the terms in a logical premise are problematic, then the premise itself is problematic. I see using a term as the major descriptive noun in a logical premise that is imprecise to the extent that it allows polar opposite experiences under the same definition as problematic. Thus I see the major premise it helps define as problematic. I can see where that might be a challenge to you with what you consider "logic".

Hey, I can make up a term too. Let's call it "free mouthnoiseization". Since it's my term, I can both declare it as an "innate human ability" and define it to mean whatever I want. I say it applies to discussions with spirit guides, arguments with relatives, making up child-like languages (and I will include pig latin because I like it), and blowing bubbles in a swimming pool IF you are using your vocal chords. So from here on out, because I am not only so spiritual for making up the term "free mouthnoiseization", but I am also so scientific, I am going to refuse to discuss SIT any more without re-labeling the term "free mouthnoiseization". Free mouthnoiseization has been proven as an innate human ability. And any logical conclusion that you arrive at that leads you to conclude otherwise is a demonstrably false conclusion. :confused:

OldSkool, I get a little bent when I see people using the same tactics as I saw used in TWI leadership. Repeating their position, which is opinion, as fact over and over and over page after page. It's like TWI indoctrination. Sketchy research, made-up words, and when their BS gets called out by logic, resorting to name-calling and an arrogant look-down-the-nose attitude being unwilling to converse on the topic any more. To me, it reminds me of trying to have a conversation with Rosalie on the topic of debt. It tees me off.

Do you mind untwisting the little logic going on in your skull here that produced this mini-victory dance celebration that reminds me of the Iraqi minister of defense? Samarin is labeling conversations with devil spirits, people making up gibberish languages, and modern SIT THE SAME THING. And saying in his opinion we should accept them all as the same thing. Note his use of the word "opinion" there. I know it's hard for you. I know you really want him to use the word "proven". Hmmm. The Catholic account where the guy came up and spoke Persian to the SIT speaker expecting him to understand because he spoke perfect Persian in his tongue didn't seem to think the tongue lacked components that qualify it as a "language".

Free vocalization was just fine as a "given" in this conversation until I started reading closely what was meant by the definition. The closer I looked, the sketchier the definition looked. The fact that you were happier when it was a "given" in the conversation than you are now calling it into question to me illustrates that you are really not seeking for the truth here. You are seeking for your premise to be proven, that everyone like you was and is faking it SIT in modern times. And you will sacrifice definitions, accounts, terms, whatever to end up justified on that in your own mind. But honest investigation? Nowhere near. Rationalization? Pretty much fits what I see in that psychological term.

And just to illustrate my point one more time, here's Raf to the rescue. "To deny the demonstrated, proven existence of an innate human ability that a linguist sympathetic to the possibility of SIT has labeled free vocalization...." Look, the term labeled "free vocalization" has been proven to include SIT, fakers, and conversations with mediums. Proven. Not opinion. Proven. Now if a rational human being wants to conclude that all 3 of those things are the same and they represent "an innate human ability" then I say that's their problem. But it certainly isn't anything "proven".

Here's the last 6 lines quoted from Samarin p. 50 P2. word for word. This way we don't mix in your opinion and toilet paper. "In this clinical self-analysis we read that Le Baron had been getting messages from what he called his "psychic automaton" in English; then even carried on conversation. Then one Sunday morning, during one of these private conversations in his hotel room, another "language" replaced English. Because he wrote down many of the messages he got on subsequent occasions, along with their translations (from the same psychic automatism), we are able to compare Le Baron's glossolalia with samples from Americans today. They are, in my opinion, so much alike that we must accept all as manifestations of the same linguistic phenomenon". So here, we have a medium and his spirit guide talking to him in another language. And Samarin's conclusion? IT'S THE SAME AS SIT. I provided another quote of Le Baron's complete account, where he identified two non-Aryan languages in the message from his spirit guide. Samarin here doesn't mention anything about those languages. Did he check them out? We don't know. All we know is that Samarin states an opinion on it. Here, we can give Samarin so much more credit than we can his main proponents like Raf. When he is stating his opinion, mostly he uses the words "in my opinion". So in Samarin's opinion a conversation with a devil spirit in another language has to be the same thing as all the other phenomenon. Sorry Samarin. I DON'T ACCEPT YOUR OPINION ON IT. I think a conversation with a devil spirit is far different than SIT.

Waysider, here's a quote from early on in the thread where Raf is equating what happened to me with making up my own language in the 6th grade. Complete BS. Complete attack. Completely dishonest.

Raf, you have been producing rhetoric for 60 pages. And you say I am wasting your time? Look in the mirror. I have taken time out of my life because of your original name-calling and BS, telling me that I am lying to myself and faking my prayer life. I suspend disbelief, dig into every single article you present and discuss it with you. Some of them are hard to keep straight, as they reference the same studies. There are infinitely more problems, like linguist terms. Like theologian terms, which we did not learn in TWI. You and I for a while kept some of this straight, providing quotes and references. We have produced three accounts where people experienced SIT and others understood. Two in our small sample space of TWI meetings, from people with reputations that are sound. One from a Catholic account, where the detail shows spontaneity. You summarily reject these, basically saying "I don't believe it". And you keep repeating over and over "modern SIT doesn't produce a language". I don't believe you are approaching this in an honest fashion. If you were, you would not have repeated yourself over and over stating opinion as fact. I provided ample documentation in even the past 4 pages of you doing exactly that. You don't refute any of it, you just ignore where I point this out. You are doing exactly what was done to us in TWI. Take an opinion, act like it is the truth, and repeat it over and over again. After a certain period of time, you see people repeating your terms. Then you know you have them. Your tactics on this thread dishonestly couched as scientific investigation are no different than the tactics TWI used to repeat things they wanted us to believe over and over again until we believed them. Now you are acting just like those TWI leaders. Once your BS gets called, you stick your nose up in the air and try to communicate to the readers you are trying to convince that it is far beneath you to respond to criticism. I call that weak. When logic fails, name call and stop responding. That kind of weakness of character speaks for itself on this thread. You think people can't see that? Oh wait, yes you do think you can fool the people. All you need to do is repeat your mantra one more time, right? The topic of devil spirits in TWI was handled wrong. Yes, common maladies were called devil spirits. However, when I have a guy in a séance saying he is talking to a spirit guide, perhaps you might consider that as evidence? So you don't think Raf said "I'm lying and so is everyone else. Everyone who SIT in modern times is faking it". ??? Go read the first page of this thread again.

Yes TWI has doctrinal error. This is not much of a shock considering how much practical error we've observed. Well, the important thing to me in this sentence is you didn't fake it. But of course, now, you could be convinced that you did fake it. That would kind of suck. No, I don't believe that it is proof of everything. I've dealt with defense mechanisms too. In myself and others. In all honesty, the biggest defense mechanisms I see on this thread are Raf's. He summarily rejects accounts where people SIT and others understood. He repeats over and over again his opinion of "modern SIT doesn't produce a language". I call BS. Modern SIT, IN MY OPINION, may be faked, it may be referred to by scientists as a conversation that is psychic between a medium and their spirit guide, or it may be genuine. Why? There was no burden of proof on Paul at the house of Cornelius, or in other accounts of Biblical SIT, so why now automatically has modern SIT produced this need for proving it? There is a dichotomy on this topic in modern Christianity that has been there for a greater period of time than the existence of the Way ministry. And Jesus should have thrown himself from the pinnacle during Satan's temptation. After all, if God said He would bear him up, then if He wouldn't do it, then where is the integrity in believing that God would have taken care of him? God is true. What if the moon was made of green cheese and all I had to do to convince others of it was to repeat over and over "the moon is made of green cheese", then "this has been proven", and "it's undisputed the evidence in support of that". And I can say this over the course of a 60 page conversation, including those phrases as many times as possible in the same vicinity, then when someone calls me on that, get real upset, say that you never said exactly that and your words are being twisted, and refuse to discuss it logically any more? To me, if I can pray to God and get born again, and pray further and simply SIT without any further instruction, then if I become "willing to accept" that somehow my prayers are BS, and God didn't answer them, then how is the prayer in which I became born again any different?

I give you a fully sourced, fully quoted reference refuting your claim that the medium Albert Le Baron that these men are studying related to the xenoglossia term spoke in a language that was recognized, Samarin references this in his paper, and somehow you can still remain in denial about it? I read the report. Until you can provide something more than a one-liner and name-calling, you have no argument. Quote Samarin, do something. No, I explained the legitimate problem with the term that is being used. It is used indiscriminately between people talking with their spirit guides, people faking SIT, and potentially people genuinely SIT. If you can't have an honest conversation because someone doesn't like the fact that your pet term pretty much is the clearest argument for scientists not being able to distinguish between devil spirit and holy spirit, and that you want to call it an "innate human ability" then that's your problem.

Here's another account of languages spoken in a tongue understood by another, courtesy of our good Catholic friends: De Nile isn't just a river going through the Amazon. "Free vocalization" is a made up term. I'm finding that it causes confusion using it, as I'm not sure whether it is talking about people SIT, people faking it, or a medium talking to his spirit guide. So no all of those things to me don't represent an innate human ability.

Another example of Raf saying "Modern SIT does not produce languages". Or wait, he wasn't really saying it :blink: One more - Here's Raf saying in his own words of his own main source that Samarin never proves that modern SIT do not produce languages. I know - my alternate universe again. ======================================= All right - from my perspective I've gone back to p. 57 of this discussion, and already found numerous examples of where Raf is stating "modern SIT does not produce languages" as fact and not an opinion. That's in the last 4 pages. So until someone points out to me the difference in the alternate universe where I'm obtaining these quotes from a real universe, I'm going to go with Raf is stating opinion as fact when he says "modern SIT does not produce languages", and that this hasn't been proven.

Here's an example of stating opinion as fact. It is not proven that "neither are those who SIT". So why are you stating is as fact? Or is this another case that I'm reading in an alternate universe that although I have the quote, you didn't really say it? There is no testable evidence that agrees with you that those that are SIT are not producing human languages. Just that nobody understood what was spoken.

The burden of proof fallacy basically is "whoever said something first or loudest has to prove it". You are mixing up the A's and the B's here. Raf started the thread. He made claim A. I thought he was full of hot air speaking about my personal private prayer life in that fashion. I stated B. If there is a burden of proof here by the standard definition it's Raf's, as he made the big fat claim in the first 10 posts on this thread before I even entered it. However, in reviewing the history of this argument, who started the claim on one side or the other is harder to pinpoint, so I'm saying neither side has a burden that they have to prove. I'm just tired of hearing Claim A stated as fact over and over again. "No modern SIT produces a language". Now we have Raf saying he didn't say that over and over. So maybe I read it in an alternate universe.