WordWolf

It's not a doctrinal difference of opinion. Since it's not a fair representation of what Raf said, none of us, including Raf, would agree with it. Also, trying to imitate his style while misunderstanding his posts is not good by any meaning of the word "good." The thing is, when people went/go through the INT class, it's NOT in a void. They had months of "fellowships" with months of samples of what the "messages from God" are supposed to sound like and look like. So, they know what to expect, and have social conditioning that everyone else expects exactly that, too. THEN comes the "you can do it" pep talks for a few sessions, THEN comes the "how to" in the sessions/excellor sessions/ small groups. Also, don't forget that any sampling of people will cover "normal distribution." Some will lag behind (and may need private sessions on top of months of prep and sessions of pep talk) and some will surge forward (and may do the stuff with only the exposure from 12 sessions of pfal or from seeing a few meetings and following the instructions in the books.) So, there will always be a few examples of people who need very little exposure. We never really discussed the "slow cases." What qualifies as a "short period" is different for people who know they're faking it and people who would be convinced they were doing it supernaturally. A class of actors could do it in one long session-provided enough examples of material were provided. Faking a language, pious manner, those are easy. Most of it will be details of the meeting, then samples of the "messages from God." So, it COULD all have been faked. I'm convinced at least some of it was NOT faked. I'm not sure how much, but SOME. (Much less than half. Maybe 5%, maybe 1%, maybe less.)

Trying to copy the STYLE of my or Raf's posts doesn't mean your posts will carry the same meaning. They certainly won't have the same sincerity, and readers will know that. And once again, you've misrepresented and oversimplified what Raf said. If that's all you got from him, no wonder you disagree. Raf would disagree with that one, too. I've gotten a lot from the discussion. I know Raf did too- he now has a much broader grasp of the subject, and understands more. I didn't approach it AT ALL until the thread. I expect others can say the same- and we're still waiting for Mark S to come back with something cool. (I am, at least.) And saying you're done but taking potshots at the rest of us isn't being done. We approached this logically and systematically, I learned, and I expect that other Christians have been gaining a lot by lurking- which I did for most of the discussion. We also asked nicely to tone the discussion down before moderation came in- we're not strangers to compassion or manners. But, hey, if you have to make us out as villains to get through the day, so be it. I certainly can't stop you.

The thing with that, chockfull, is that, sooner or later, you'll come across NEW things that won't fit so well. Some verse you never read in Habakkuk or something, some new manuscript, some new information, scientific or not. That's when you have to decide whether to chuck the whole thing out (which I wouldn't but some people have), to hide from the new thing (there's some Christians out there with deep faith but shallow education) or to INCORPORATE IT and ADJUST your theology (that's what I do when new information comes in.) I don't count myself to have gotten there and grabbed it all any more than Paul did. However, I do keep trying to learn more. I find it leads to a DEEPER faith if I have a DEEPER understanding. Then, when I eventually make a "leap of faith", it's over a much shorter distance.

He was tired of repeating himself, especially since you read his previous points and circled them ad nauseum before that. It was as pointless as the man born blind explaining, and re-re-re-explaining, how Jesus opened his eyes. After a certain amount of repetition, it gets ridiculous to keep trying.

What people are "attacking" (debating or discussing) is a rather specific thing- whether or not modern SIT and Biblical SIT are the same thing, and, in Doctrinal, whether they could be or if it is possible currently to HAVE Biblical SIT. Really, is your faith entirely centered around that? Lots of healthy Christians with deep faith disagree with you. As for numbers in the poll, they don't distinguish between twi'ers who are still in who vote, ex-twi'ers who think vpw was the Right Hand of God, people who refuse to consider at all, and those who are open to changing their mind if there's a reason. The original phrasing was likely to influence people AGAINST the idea anything changed because it was abrasive, AND the whole subject, as you can see, is controversial to the ex-twi communities. With all that, the votes say 50% of people logged in and voting have changed their minds. I suppose it's possible someone's just reacting to hatred of vpw, but none of the POSTERS have cited that as a reason. They THOUGHT and CONCLUDED they were wrong before.

Ok, too many quote-marks to preserve, so I'll add the post#s to make them easy to find. They're all from pages 7-9 from this thread. ['chockfull' 11 November 2012 - 12:50 AM]post 135. The main problem with lack of "progress" lies in the fact that after an 88 page thread on the topic, the bulk of the evidence we REALLY have is "modern SIT seems to not resemble Biblical SIT". (snip) [/] ['chockfull''11 November 2012 - 01:48 AM']post 137. Samarin shows in his study that glossa samples have the same construct as languages with respect to the cadence and linguistic breakdown into sentences, phrases, sub-phrases, and words. Samarin also finds that glossa samples meet 10 of the 16 criteria on Hoskell's language characteristic chart. That is not "no resemblance". [/] How about that.... I was rather specific about Biblical SIT vs modern SIT. chockfull joined me on the subject, even quoting me. Then suddenly, what I said was suddenly about something else! (Which he was also wrong about and was corrected, but that's something else.) I was specifically ONLY bringing up Biblical SIT vs modern SIT. ['chockfull''12 November 2012 - 07:12 PM']post 154. (snip) Glossa "bears no resemblance to language". LIE. (snip) [/] Notice there's no direct link back to a post where someone is being quoted as having SAID that. That's because chockfull did a little sleight-of-hand, changing one post's words into something the poster never said. I wrote about Biblical SIT and modern SIT and said they seem not to resemble each other- which transformed into an entirely different subject-which chockfull then attacked. Easy to attack things other people ever said... ['chockfull'13 November 2012 - 01:10 PM']post 160. (snip) Good. I'll take this as your official retraction of the statement about SIT bearing no resemblance to language then. As I see you admitting matching Hockett criteria. I'll also consider this as your admission that the statement that SIT bears no resemblance to language is misinformation. I still don't understand how you justify blanket statements like "modern SIT bears no resemblance to language" when you readily admit there are points of resemblance. I guess you don't care about (to put this as diplomatically as I can without violating rules) being truthful and accurate in these blanket statements being made. [/] Here chockfull's repeating his invented claim of something I said. He's determined to put words in my mouth and refute them. Amazing. Furthermore, now he includes Raf in inventing posts they never made. Raf catches him on his invention. ['chockfull''13 November 2012 - 04:15 PM']post 162. (snip) So a few pages ago, we have "SIT bears no resemblance to human language". You either said it or supported WordWolf saying it - I'm not playing your word games. Now we have "I have always conceded that SIT resembles human language". [/] chockfull's trying it again... ...and is called on it. ['chockfull''13 November 2012 - 05:05 PM' ']post 165. No. I'm tired of you making this about the consistency or not of your own words. All that does is put your words in type one more time, which advances your rhetoric. Your words are not what's worth discussing. Scripture is. Scientific facts are. [/] chockfull's challenged to prove his claim of posts that say what he CLAIMS they said, but don't say. chockfull refuses to present any evidence-big surprise. But he also refuses to apologize for his MISTAKE. Since there was no such claim, it was hard for Raf to "support" it, no matter what chockfull said.

I wanted to be specific. AFAIK, the only posters posting on this thread with Theater experience are me and Waysider. So, I'd like to point out Raf is correct here. Improvisational actors are trained in a wide variety of skills that would affect their ability to do this. However, conmen can do it as well. And anyone can learn to do it. It takes longer when someone has to believe they're doing something spiritual rather than something mundane, but it's easy if you have the right setup. You need the right patter to prime them (like when vpw says things for THREE FULL SESSIONS like "Don't you want to speak the wonderful works of God?"). You need lots of people to provide social context and social pressure. You need people over at least 3 nights (more is much more effective) to demonstrate what it looks like "during manifestations." Months of it is more effective than nights of it. When Session 12 rolls along, the pigeon/student is primed to go, and if they don't SIT on cue along with the entire room, then someone comes over to them directly to get them going, and takes them aside if that doesn't work. With more time and practice with the first step, the next steps become easy. The Intermediate spends a LOT of time on prepping people to believe that the next thing is of God. One guy I know had been waiting to do for years, and was complaining that several sessions went by without getting into it- they just kept getting into "You can do it." "I know I can do it, show me how!" Each Intermediate had groups where we did it and set up the new students perfectly to expect to do the same and what it looks like. Instead of an acting instructor, we had a class instructor, hours and hours of prep to prime our expectations, then hours in individual groups where people learned more by observation and practice. One of the most important things, which is easy for some people to forget, is all the previous exposure to the stuff in meetings, and again there. So, the person knows what the result is supposed to sound like. I could design a class exercise for acting students to look the same. The only difference is that the acting students would know they are faking it. (Ok, the 2nd of 2 differences would be I'd do it in a fraction of the time because the acting students would know they are faking it, and I could skip straight to the ingredients of the specific performance- how to move, how to stay, how to make the SIT sounds, what components to place in the "interpretation" and what components to leave out, etc. The result would either look like an Excellors Session, or a full meeting, depending on what I designed the thing to look like.

Either he's been serious the entire time, or he's been messing with us the entire time. If he's serious, his last claim just falls down when it comes to me- because he's have to say I originally did the real thing, have then said I faked it, followed the discussion, and after lots of thought, THEN changed my belief about SIT entirely. I'd be quite happy to SIT like God said. First I have to find a real example in life. I have plenty of experience with fakes. I liked this post too much not to quote it.

I'd like to point out that I find your approach BACKWARDS. That's because I started from one yes or no question- "Is Biblical SIT the same as modern SIT?" That's something observable and testable. So, like a scientist, I observe, and make my conclusions AFTER my observations. What if I don't understand WHY something is true? An honest scientist (like any honest observer) will most likely check again. After some re-checking, they sometimes end up at the same point, more definitively. It's clear something is true, it is unclear WHY it is true. LATER, after more observations, more discussion, more tests, understanding follows. But first comes observing what is, THEN comes understanding. You're saying that "If I can't see a reason for there to be a change, there can't possibly be a change." I'm saying "I see evidence there are 2 different things. I do not know WHY they are 2 different things." I'm not afraid of "I don't know." I'm concerned about deciding what I think I know is the sum total of what there IS to know, and stopping before I learn something important that changes everything. I'm also definitely NOT a "cessationist." If there's Biblical SIT now, I want to know where, and I want IN. I know where it ISN'T. As for the rest-divine revelation, etc, nobody can convince me it doesn't happen. P.S. You seem to have missed discussions of the verses you claim were skipped.

First of all, the phrase "ABSOLUTELY IMPLIES" is a contradiction in terms, like "IRONCLAD RUMOR." Someone's IMPLICATION can't be ABSOLUTE because to make something clear, let alone ABSOLUTE requires direct speaking, which is the antithesis of IMPLICATION. Second of all, the error there is obvious. He speaks specifically of 6. He says nothing of the rest there. In and of itself, this tells us nothing of what he thought about the other criteria. So, then we look at the other criteria. When we look at them, we see they don't tell us much. They don't match some. They match a few that also match gibberish. This really should surprise nobody who read the other thread because all the criteria were itemized and addressed at one point. In numerical order.

As to "no resemblance", I thought everyone would understand the difference between "no resemblance beyond that of producing sound" and "no physical connections." TECHNICALLY, yes, they produce sound, and audible languages do that. So do car horns and cat meows. So, TECHNICALLY, they share a common trait, all of them. As to the criteria that are met, they're ones, as has been mentioned ad nauseum, by gibberish as well as language. If you understood language studies better, you'd have gotten it when it was laid out in detail.

Yowza. Ok, waysider... You're currently the best-informed in the room about acting and theater. If you'd be so kind, can you please outline for everyone else how this works? I know chockfull is going to say it makes no sense, but for everyone else, it should be informative. The specialized training of actors gives them the experience and so on to do these sorts of things more easily, but they're trainable skills for most people to some degree. I can go into the socialization and culturalization a bit more, though.

I'm conservative in my language. Science taught me that. With everything we've seen so far, there's no resemblance. That means they seem to not resemble each other. Dishonesty does hinder progress. That much we agree upon. Until you can see the logic flaw in equating that you just demonstrated again, you're going to miss a lot. But thanks for laying it out for Mark and any late arrivals. I'd rather you see it too, and if you disagreed with me, it would be on better grounds. So far, I haven't seen any evidence of you having a scientific or logical background for the evidence or the arguments to appeal TO. So, the chances of either making sense to you from either perspective isn't so strong. I also can see which side's relying on "theatrics" and histrionics and which is letting the evidence speak. We agree on the last point that ultimately the subject is not affected by the posts. However, people can read all this and make up their own minds. I certainly did-primarily from reading the thread and following along. BTW, thanks for summarizing your position succinctly. It can be addressed succinctly now. That's not what it meant. Anecdotal evidence exists supporting a lot of things you dismiss casually- like UFO abductions. It's hypocritical to say anecdotal evidence of UFOs or Bigfoot don't carry weight, but anecdotal evidence of understood modern SIT is "evidence." That's one reason the thread isn't completing its progress. Mind you, I think the threads ARE making progress partly BECAUSE of the circling. I certainly became convinced of one side and left the side I wanted to be on after seeing the circling and the materials.

You misunderstand the difference between the situations. Anecdotes that, decades ago, some people other than the speaker claimed something about understanding something someone said that they supposedly didn't understand is not able to be scrutinized. We can't bring in the speaker and confirm they didn't know the language. We can't bring in the person who supposedly made off-hand comments about understanding it. In a court of law, that would be laughed out if someone tried to bring it as proof of anything. That's why socks, for example, didn't offer it, saying "You should consider this a refutation of your point." socks understood that-even IF every single thing he thought happened, and he reported it 100% accurately- (and we have no way to test any of it), it should convince us of nothing other than that it convinced socks at the time. socks wisely left it at that. As for me saying I lied and faked it, well, that's different. You only need one person's testimony- that of the liar and faker. Having an eyewitness would reinforce that. Each of us testifying we lied should be sufficient. (What would be sufficient proof we lied, supposing you believed there was such a thing?) Raf says he lied about it and faked it. He has an eyewitness to that- me. I saw him lie about it and fake it. I said I lied about it and faked it. I have an eyewitness to that-him. He saw me lie about it and fake it. Both of us were HONESTLY MISTAKEN. We didn't MEAN to lie. We did so UNINTENTIONALLY. So, you have both the liar and the eyewitness. In 2 directions. About multiple incidents over multiple years. In the previous examples, you have neither. And again, when this thread began, I was firmly thinking "I was doing what God wanted and didn't lie." In a court of law, my testimony that it was a fake would carry MORE weight because I didn't WANT to believe it. (It's like a man who hates another man, but steps forth with proof of the second man's alibi that he's innocent of a crime.) I don't expect you to get the difference. Everyone else will. Your experience is nonexistent. I'm speaking of a point that waysider made, and I also made. You lack experience and training in Theater. I don't know who waysider studied under. My limited education on the subject came under the late Kevin O'Connor. I have had further experience working with improvisational actors and theater students, in a few different contexts. Thus, my claim is that actors can produce both the sounds-referred to here as "free vocalization" but would mean the same thing without a name- and the speeches- referred to as "interpretation" or "prophecy" with a little practice and a little context. I've done scenes where "free vocalization" was done instead of dialogue. (In fact, O'Connor complimented me directly on how well I did in that scene.) Lots of others have as well. In fact, a more advanced exercise has actors switching back and forth between their native language and gibberish at an instant, on command. I've seen stand-up comedians with acting backgrounds do that one. waysider could probably tell you more about both. If you question what improvisational actors really CAN do, then ask to sit in on a class of them. If you like, I can design the "experiment" for you. You can choose the class. You can choose the day and time. You can personally observe the results. And it will look JUST like an old twig meeting's manifestation time. It's been established on this thread to a reasonable degree. It hasn't been established on this thread to your satisfaction- primarily because nothing would get us there short of Jesus Christ himself logging in, proving it was him to you, and certifying everything that was said. There's been realistic conversation and there's been evidence. Please stop exchanging the word "evidence" for the word "proof." There's enough EVIDENCE to weigh everything to one side. That the research showed you nothing in the way of evidence, we can't do anything about that, either. chockfull, with no background in Formal Psychology, you honestly can't speak with even lesser authority on how the subconscious and the conscious work. The entire subject of metacognition requires some formal education. (Or years of dedicated, independent study from formal sources.) That you've never had even an introductory level is obvious from the fact that you didn't recognize what the word "metacognition" meant- it comes up in university in the Introductory class, and is VERY introductory. (In fact, I accidentally re-invented the term in class once, which showed I understood the subject and hadn't read the assigned chapter which was CALLED "metacognition" before walking into class that morning.) So, when you explain to me how the subconscious mind and how the conscious mind work, I take that like I take correcting our resident poster (I forget who has the Mathematics degree) if I try to correct him on mathematics. He's studied it a LOT more than me and honestly should understand it a LOT more. On subjects you've studied formally that I have NOT, I'd expect you know them far better than I. Psychology is not one of them. Metacognition is a particular interest of mine, from all perspectives (including Biological, and Sociological influences on same.) So, when I say that I understand how the subconscious works and that's what happened, and you say "You're wrong and clearly don't understand how the subconscious works", well.... Exactly. We ALL meant well. No, in other words, like anyone else I'd like to believe I'm always right and never need to apologize or correct my positions on things. I'm just brutally honest with myself about that part. (Examining my own thoughts and how I get there has been a hobby for decades.) Given 2 choices, I'd accept being always right over being sometimes wrong. Since I prefer truth over ego, I'd accept correcting my errors over concealing them daily if necessary. (In fact, that ties into how I became a Christian. I knew I had to choose between brutal truths I despised, and lies I wanted to believe, and the answer would determine who I'd become.) So, I'm chagrined that I lied and faked it. I'm glad I can see that and face it now, and won't do it again tomorrow. I'm a tiny bit more truthful, a tiny bit improved for it.

I lost you about metacognition because you're making claims about metacognition NOW. The whole subject of how thinking works and what goes on, I've done work in it. So, I know what I know on the subject, and I know what I don't know on the subject. I've also done work in Theater, Human Communications, and Sociology. I can speak on each in limited capacities-and I'm aware of what I do and don't know in each. As to Sociology, any Sociologist (or competent undergrad student) could design a social structure for an organization that would have the participants, the members, taught that free vocalization was divine, and that if they trusted God, both syllables not connected to any language and lacking the structure of any language would be directly of God. They then could go on and teach the people that, if they trusted God, the people could "interpret" that, and that the words in their own language that immediately followed would be of God, and that God wanted them to. Then the only things needed would be some samples to acculturate the people so they "knew how it worked." That's exactly how the "slain in the Spirit" people work, and the people who "dance in the Spirit." They expect God to deliver, and they do something and expect God to provide the specifics. They sincerely believe that's how it works. Ok, so that's a framework that would provide the expectations. The only missing things would be the actual utterances. Any improvisational actor can produce free vocalization. If their instructions were clear, they could free vocalize and speak in their language after that, insisting that was the translation. With some preparation and samples to draw from, they could produce results identical to the twi experience- stand up, speak without a language, then speak in their language and sound EXACTLY like the expected interpretation. Any adult could do the same with some training. With the proper mindset, any adult could be taught to do that and believe it was all directly from God. As for "prophecy", that's even simpler. They'd just need a sampling to draw from, so they knew what it sounded like. Any improvisational actor could keep going as long as needed or instructed. Any non-actor who was convinced it was of God could do it all the time. So, COULD it all have been faked? Yes, it could all have been faked. We were taught it was real. We had expectations it was real. We expected that if we uttered syllables, God would provide meaning, and we had samples of what other people's speech sounded like. (I've noticed that most modern SIT in twi sounded the same no matter what state the speaker was from.) As for interpretation or prophecy, yes, with expectations raised, and samples to draw from, you'd get well-intentioned people who provided them and thought they were from God. The speakers were primed, the listeners were primed. Nothing was questioned, nobody WANTED to question it. If it was real, honest scrutiny would RE-ENFORCE THIS, not THREATEN IT.

Personally, I see the main problem in the lack of "progress", with this, why we circled the same handful of points ad infinitum, was due primarily to one thing. There are at least 3 propositions. A) Modern SIT seems to not resemble Biblical SIT and does not seem to be supernatural at all, unlike Biblical SIT. B) God's Power in the lives of Christians no longer applies entirely. C) Supernatural things happen all the time, and demonic demonstrations of power are very common. Those people who currently hold that -A- is true, disagree with -B- and disagree with -C-. The few who've been holding forth that -A- is false have been insisting that to agree to -A- means one AUTOMATICALLY agrees with -B-, and thus AUTOMATICALLY disagrees with -B-, while to agree with -B- means one MUST disagree with -A- and agree with -C-. Period. Thus, it's not purely a discussion about -A- at all. Someone has been determined to insist it's about -B- at times, and at other times has held that since -B- is false, there's no way -A- can be true- and has approached the entire discussion accordingly. In other words, no matter what the actual typed words are, the whole point of their posts, the subtext, the reasons, the motives, have nothing to do with -A- but rather with -B-. That makes it difficult to have a fair discussion on the subject and get places. But watching it unfold for page after page showed me one thing: I saw which side was making sense-and it wasn't mine. I saw which side was making rudimentary errors about science, content, and what everyone's posts said- and it was mine. So, I had a LOT more information supporting the idea that I needed to change my thinking. I'm certain that wasn't the INTENDED result.

That's it. You either got it by recognizing Durand Durand and an angel, or eliminated possibilities by saying "science fiction movie, older than the Star Wars Trilogy or thereabouts, with an angel, a female protagonist, and not a lot of concern for her wearing her uniform. I was cruising Wikiquote for ideas and saw that name, and I was pretty sure we'd never done this movie. For those curious about the movie, just find a summary of the story. It's really not worth sitting down to watch it if it's in front of you. (I wouldn't, anyway.)

"Our rendezvous point will be at 1600 hours. And our password will be… "Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch"." "Just a moment — I'll slip something on." "Don't trouble yourself. This is an affair of state." "I have no armies, or police… and I can't spare the Presidential Band. Besides, you're a five-star, double-rated astronavigatrix. Your mission, then. Find Durand Durand, and use all of your incomparable talents to preserve the security of the stars." "De-crucify the angel!" "What?" "De-crucify him or I'll melt your face!" Ok, the posters older than me and Raf should be able to figure this one out now. Or any trivia buffs who know where a certain 80s band got their name.

In other news.... Mark, I like you and I respect you. So, please take this at face value. We've been having a discussion about this. It's been contentious. I'd like to think your side is correct, but all the evidence supports the other side- that what we're seeing now is NOT what they saw THEN. We've also started from what we all already knew. So, I'm sure you can see that if you come at this SOUNDING like twi teachings, covering the same ground as twi teachings, then nothing new is brought to the table. You've done your own studies-there's no need to rehash what we all heard in twi and have already DISMISSED. The only results are frustration that we're recovering the same ground again or that someone SOUNDS like twi, which is annoying on its own. Also, if you're trying to convince us Paul SIT'd, you're wasting your time. None of us ever questioned that. We're saying that what Paul did-and they did and experienced- is not what we did and experienced. So, posting about that frustrates people who already agreed with that but feel like you're not listening to what they had to say. We'd LIKE a dialogue here. So far, we're not really getting a dialogue with the affirmative posters. A few other things should be obvious, but I'll spell them out. 1) We're serious and suggesting otherwise won't add something good to the discussion. 2) Flat claims by ANYONE that "they're the same" won't move us- not the Pope, not BG Leonard, not George Mueller, not vpw, and not any poster. So, saying "Organization X and Book Y are quite certain they're the same" won't sway any opinions. That's why I say, take your time, and bring your "A-Game" to the table. Let's see what you have that shows-from Scripture- that SIT there is the same thing as SIT in a modern twi-style meeting in a living room. If it REALLY can make a stronger case that it is, I'm open to changing my mind again. Being surprised won't change that.

A number of us have posted on the thread. I said rather clearly "I lied." I meant well, I didn't mean to deceive myself, but I did. Of course, you've already determined that nothing could possibly weaken your case, so either I'm lying about having lied, or I was never born again, or some other dismissive carp like that. If a professional in Cognitive Psychology chimed in with that one, I'd weigh it heavily. As it is, I know full well that messages that sounded just like the ones we regularly heard in fellowship can be constructed "on-the-fly" at conversational speed with a little practice, or an "excellor session." It's certainly possible that every single message like that I've heard was faked that way. People darned well CAN fake a message like that. (Personally, I think that at least a minority of those I've heard or spoken could POSSIBLY have been faked but were not. As to the majority, we meant to praise God, we meant to bring forth messages from Him, and we brought them forth from ourselves. That's how I see it.) This has got to be a joke. Look- everyone else has seen pages and pages explaining how it works. That's what I did when I attempted to SIT. When I meant to interpret or prophesy, I looked for a message to bless the people at hand, something God wanted them to hear. With no immediate revelation (in nearly every case, I think), I reached into my subconscious mind and into my experience WITH these messages in twi and produced ones that sounded like everyone else's. And I never MEANT to lie or fake it. I meant to serve God. I meant to bring forth messages at God Almighty's behest. I meant to do the right thing. Calling us "liars" when that's the case all around is not exactly fair. I mean, all men are liars at some point but we reserve the term for exceptional cases. The same goes for "fakers". But you did get one thing right- I would have been happier thinking I was doing God's will the entire time- if I actually HAD been. I'd rather face the truth either way, but I prefer my truths to be pleasant ones that make me look less foolish. You've never done studies in metacognition-I have. I'm no expert, but I can follow along when an expert explains things, and I know the basics.

I'd say, when I was in twi, that some 90% or nearly 100% of all messages were variations on about 6 messages we heard regularly. When I was a Roman Catholic, I found repeating the same Scriptures on schedule once a year, every year to be a bit repetitive by the time I was about 11. Hearing the same message twice a week was only inspiring because I was supposed to be inspired. (It was only partly effective.) And for the record,I think waysider has just strung 2 of them together, with 1 of them a bit shorter than normal.

Nothing that recent.

What, it's MY turn? Oops. "Our rendezvous point will be at 1600 hours. And our password will be… "Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch"." "Just a moment — I'll slip something on." "Don't trouble yourself. This is an affair of state."

Is it "Saturday Night", the Bay City Rollers?

We're agreeing with Paul. We'd also like to find real examples of what Paul spoke about- if any currently exist. We're not arguing with Paul, we're agreeing with him- and claiming the modern practice has been LABELLED the same thing but is not. I myself was hoping for some evidence to the contrary, but none has appeared that can actually sway me logically. (Would be nice, though.) But if you disagree, hey, cool. Jesus will settle all differences at the appointed time. Unless the Scriptures actually show that what Paul did is NOTHING like the modern practice we were all indoctrinated into in twi. Then those who still do it are sincerely mistaken and MEAN to pray and praise to God, but are doing something other than Biblical SIT at the time. Feel free to do a slow, good job and not feel rushed. We all have things to do.