WordWolf

"Even a man who is pure at heart, and says his prayers at night, may become a wolf when the wolfsbane blooms and the moon shines full and bright."

FERRIS BUEHLER, on his DAY OFF.

You'd kick out That Hope Business??? ;) =============================== For those of you playing along at home, I'll explain that one. Long ago, when I was a new twi'er, I would take notes at all meetings, especially verse references. I put the date, topic, announcements, verses, and critical notes for any teaching. So, if the speaker (for a home meeting) didn't give any indication of the topic name, I'd raise my hand and ask "Topic?" and I'd prepare a name for each I ever taught. Naturally, knowing I was going to ask, sometimes this tempted people to make up topic titles that had little or nothing to do with the actual topic. One time, I'd invited a friend along who elected to attend. One of the other people (not the usual person) had a teaching prepped. As always, I asked the topic. He answered, matter of factly, "Agammemnon's Revenge Against Perseus", which I wrote down. Raf, on the other hand, was sitting next to me and wrote down "This Hope Business." It was really what the thing was about, and the guy began with something like "I wanted to go into some of this hope business."

The False Dilemma hidden here is one made by a number of Christians, which is a shame. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and/or-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between the two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be a completely different alternative. False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that "if you are not with us, you are against us"). But the fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception. One of the legitimate things that was said in twi was "We don't even trust in our understanding of God's Word." (Would have been nice if this had been MEANT instead of only SAID, but that's another topic.) When there's 2 pieces of information which contradict, the answer is often that something is being overlooked- it's not always that one is completely right and one is completely wrong. Sometimes both are right-but in part and are overlooking facts that show the other is right in part. (The blind men describing the elephant is the easiest example, where one observes the trunk, another the leg, and describe different attributes.) So, when I find that there's a contradiction between science and Scripture, I CONSIDER ALL OPTIONS. It's possible the facts are not being observed correctly, and later will be. It's possible the facts are correct but preconceived notions are causing them to be misinterpreted. And so on. It's said that science is self-correcting, but sometimes it takes a while for corrections to be made, and I'm aware of that. Generally, it's not a problem and I'm not afraid of science. Also to be considered, however, is the other side of the problem. It's possible the verses were doctored-something was added or majorly changed. It's possible the verses were mangled in translation. It's possible the verses are translated correctly, but I'm bringing preconceived notions that mean I misunderstand what I'm reading. The Bible was not written as a science textbook, and attempting to make it so, to try to make the verses speak, say, with "a mathematical exactness" or "a scientific precision" is wishful thinking and leads to misunderstanding of what's actually being said. I'm well aware that coming to Scripture, I bring ideas and notions. Sometimes I need to change those because they're wrong and holding me back from really understanding the verses. Science VERSUS the Bible? No thanks, I'm in favor of BOTH. My faith isn't challenged by trying to keep up with the latest scientific developments. (My Evolution teacher was pleased at how well I understood the material we covered, and quite complimentary about it. Not being afraid of the subject meant I was able to read and find things like flaws in preconceived notions and factual errors when I came across them-both of which came later.) I'm humble enough to acknowledge I don't know it all and need to be ready to discard my thinking periodically-and often- to come to a fuller understanding. Even if I don't LIKE where the truth is leading me. In the case of this thread, it seems it's leading me in such a direction. I'd LIKE to think that we were practicing things that pleased God with our modern SIT, but my likes and dislikes can't change reality. The evidence all points in one direction. I trust in my Heavenly Father but I don't trust in my understanding of Him and think that's the final word on things. I sleep better with the idea that tomorrow I may learn something that brings me closer to Him in some way. I pursue that in a sort-of Zeno's Paradox kind of way, knowing I won't arrive while I walk the Earth.

If he saw another page on the thread by accident, I consider it unfortunate, but I don't consider it "cheating." He didn't look anything up. If he'd been on IMdB or something, I'd probably consider that cheating.

But, George, you didn't actually NAME any specific movie of the trilogy!

I'll save a minority of readers some time. The following is a quote from Marjoe Gortner. According to Wikipedia, he "is a former revivalist and actor who first gained attention during the late 1940s when, aged four, he became the youngest-known ordained preacher. He then gained notoriety in the 1970s when he starred in Marjoe, an Oscar-winning behind-the-scenes documentary about the lucrative business of Pentecostal preaching. " He did a movie about the experience. It can be seen in parts on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0B66318D2985FB0D Ok, here's where I was going. He gave some interviews and I'm going to quote one. Since it was to an atheist and is posted on an atheist website, some people will automatically dismiss it. Those people can just scroll past to the next post. =================================== "The hit song, however, is spiritual rebirth, the product of a time-tested recipe for religion to which the preacher and every member of the audience contribute some small but active ingredient. Then, according to Marjoe, the only fitting encore to the overwhelming moment of becoming saved is a personal demonstration of the power of that newfound faith. This is the motivating factor that prompts speaking in tongues, also known as the "receiving of the glossolalia." As Marjoe explained it, this well-known Evangelical tradition requires even greater audience participation on the part of the tongues recipient and the entire audience. "After you've been saved," Marjoe continued, "the next step is what they call 'the infilling of the Holy Spirit.' They say to the new convert, 'Well, now you're saved, but you've got to get the Holy Ghost.' So you come back to get the tongues experience. Some people will get it the same night; others will go for weeks or years before they can speak in tongues. You hear it, you hear everyone at night talking in it in the church, and they're all saying, 'We love you and we hope you're going to get it by tonight.' Then one night you go down there and they all try to get you to get it, and you go into very much of a trance -- not quite a frenzy, but it is an incredible experience. "During that moment the person forgets all about his problems. He is surrounded by people whom he trusts and they're all saying, 'We love you. It's okay. You're accepted in Christ. We're with you, let it go, relax.' And sooner or later, he starts to speak it out and go dut-dut-dut. Then everyone goes, 'That's it! You've got it!' and the button is pushed and he will in fact start to speak in tongues and just take off: dehan-dayelo-mosatay-leesaso ... and on and on." Marjoe paused. Flo was dumbfounded by his demonstration, although he hadn't gone into the jerking, trance-like ecstasy that is commonly associated with the tongues movement. I'd seen the classic version in his movie, yet even in this restrained demonstration, Marjoe appeared to be triggering some internal releasing or babbling mechanism. I asked him how he brought it about. "You'll never get with that attitude," he joked. Then he went on to explain the true nature of the experience. His perspective showed it to be a process that requires a great deal of effort to master. "Tongues is something you learn," he emphasized. "It is a releasing that you teach yourself. You are told by your peers, the church, and the Bible -- if you accept it literally -- that the Holy Ghost spake in another tongue; you become convinced that it is the ultimate expression of the spirit flowing through you. The first time maybe you'll just go dut-dut-dut-dut, and that's about all that will get out. Then you'll hear other people and next night you may go dut-dut-dut-UM-dut-DEET-dut-dut, and it gets a little better. The next thing you know, it's ela-hando-satelay-eek-condele-mosandrey-aseya ... and it's a new language you've got down." Except that, according to Marjoe, it's not a real language at all. Contrary to most religious understanding, speaking in tongues is by no means passive spiritual possession. It must be actively acquired and practiced. Although the "gift" of tongues is a product of human and not supernatural origin, Marjoe displayed tremendous respect for the experience as an expression of spirituality and fellowship. "I really don't put it down," he said. "I never have. It's just that I analyze it and look at it from a very rational point of view. I don't see it as coming from God and say that at a certain point the Holy Spirit zaps you with a super whammy on the head and you've 'gone for tongues' and there is it. Tongues is a process that people build up to. Then, as you start to do something, just as when you practice the scales on the piano, you get better at it." ==================================================== Me, I still insist God Almighty is still in Heaven, Jesus is my Lord, and people will lie to each other and themselves, whether they mean to or not. So, even if modern SIT is all a fraud, God is still as Awesome as He always was.

Too bad you missed the point, but really, if I could have placed a bet on it, that's where I would have placed it. The scientific method is used at lots of levels. Wearing a white coat and being in a lab does not guarantee one is using "the scientific method". Technobabble doesn't guarantee it, either. For that matter, one can use the scientific method without being anywhere NEAR a lab, and that's why the television show that most consistently uses the scientific method almost never uses a lab, and is known for explosives, ballistics gel, and so on. A simple example of a simple usage of the scientific method can be perfectly valid- and in this case, it was. It was also clear enough for all readers to understand, which is helpful when explaining science to a roomful of laymen. I'm no stranger to science, and I appreciate when a speaker can speak at the layman's level. So, most people could understand and follow when the differences were explained and an example was given. It's a shame you just found it funny, but there's an obvious disconnect there. BTW, if the explanation was in error or the example invalid, I would have called Raf on it because I expect better from him. He was NOT in error, and no professor I've studied under would have said he was wrong.

And it made me giggle for a moment. Mrs Wolf, she just said "If he's really WordWolf, then who have I been sleeping with all this time?" Honestly, if Raf was WordWolf, he'd keep my s/n correct without trying. I only split up the name when entering it somewhere that requires "First and last name." IIRC, Sudo did the same long before he posted here, when he used "Sudo Nym." Raf and I have certain similarities, and certain dramatic differences. We're both geeky, but usually about very different things.

Ok, I can accept that as a limit on the discussion. Would you and waysider participate if I did? I'm hoping from input from both of you, and cut-and-paste would be acceptable where it's relevant.

*reviews the opening post* *studies the end of the post* So he did. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

In fairness, I think this thread has become about 2 things. A) One person's rejection of free vocalization as an innate human ability. B) One person's conflation of 2 subjects into one, namely, 1) the possible rejection of an innate human ability as not supernatural, (if it is logical that modern SIT is free vocalization AND that free vocalization is an innate human ability) 2) the possible rejection that God Almighty performs miracles or anything supernatural whatsoever if the modern SIT is not the Biblical SIT but rather an innate human ability. The second subject keeps on being introduced by the one person who claims the first can be rejected. (I wrote "the one person who wants the first to be rejected" but erased that because I myself WANT to reject the first but can't because I don't have any evidence pointing where I WANT the evidence to point.) ========================= Just to restate something..... God Almighty is still on the throne and acts in miraculous fashions all the time, even if all of modern SIT is hokum and wishful thinking and completely false. Any fakery on behalf of humans, well-intentioned or no, does not invalidate God one whit. No one has claimed it has. (For those who are convinced God Almighty doesn't act in miraculous fashions all the time, I'm speaking from my own convictions there about that and the existence of God Almighty. I'm doing it because the subject of the thread gets muddied when mixed with the other subject.) ======================== BTW, how would waysider and Raf feel about starting a new thread in Open or someplace, specifically to get into "free vocalization" in all its forms and why they're all the same thing, then maybe how words and terms get invented?

Then I'm happy for you, subject to that being a true story. I have one I experienced involving rapid healing that I'm quite thankful for experiencing. However, neither story or anecdote has anything to do with the current subject. Then our stories represent veering off the main discussion. No law against that, or against a thread completely changing in focus. However, it should never be mistaken for staying on-topic. Whether or not anyone ever produced an actual language during "modern SIT" is completely a different topic from "has anyone ever received a miraculous healing". However, it seems to me you keep lumping them together and saying that one has to believe BOTH or reject BOTH, which is patently an error. Wonderful. Which doesn't mean it has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not anyone speaking with "modern SIT" has ever produced an actual language. Nobody requested "outlandish stories." (If they did, I missed it-please quote and link.) However, if you're calling claims of people speaking in an actual, understood language when claiming to SIT nowadays "outlandish stories", I'm coming to think you have something there. Hey, I didn't go that far, but it seems you did. Me, I think "outlandish" overstates things. ================== In other news, can we just have this discussion on the other thread? It's open and everything.

YES! Go.

IIRC, it was waysider who posted before me about having been in acting classes or the equivalent and performing "free vocalization" without it being called that. If it's all right with you, can we reiterate the acting part about that for those in the studio audience who just tuned in? With some context so those who never did the exercise can get a sense of what it looks like? I'll join in, of course. I expect my own experience is shallower than yours. (I may be wrong on that.)

I can't ever see Terrence Stamp in anything without hearing him demanding people kneel. Not once I know it's Stamp.

"As if men don't desire strangers! As if... ohh, I refuse to speak of disgusting things, because they disgust me! You understand, boy? Go on, go tell her she'll not be appeasing her ugly appetite with MY food... or my son! Or do I have tell her because you don't have the guts! Huh, boy? You have the guts, boy?" "Shut up! Shut up!" "No! I will not hide in the fruit cellar! Ha! You think I'm fruity, huh? I'm staying right here. This is my room and no one will drag me out of it, least of all my big, bold son!" And the $40,000? Who got that?" "The swamp." "Do you have any vacancies?" "Oh, we have 12 vacancies. 12 cabins, 12 vacancies." " It's sad, when a mother has to speak the words that condemn her own son. But I couldn't allow them to believe that I would commit murder. They'll put him away now, as I should have years ago. He was always bad, and in the end he intended to tell them I killed those girls and that man... as if I could do anything but just sit and stare, like one of his stuffed birds. They know I can't move a finger, and I won't. I'll just sit here and be quiet, just in case they do... suspect me. They're probably watching me. Well, let them. Let them see what kind of a person I am. I'm not even going to swat that fly. I hope they are watching... they'll see. They'll see and they'll know, and they'll say, "Why, she wouldn't even harm a fly..." "

You are correct. George figured he was missing something obvious. I was shaking a few clues at him- Kato as a side "Kick" and a "Beauty" of a car, especially. Al Hirt playing "Flight of the Bumblebee" can often make people recall the series if they watched it. In the TV show, the GH used a sonic "sting" and a gas gun. The Lone Ranger was invented by Fran Striker, as was the Green Hornet, both as radio characters first. The Lone Ranger's nepher was Dan Reid. The Green Hornet was Britt Reid, the son of Dan Reid. The connection is sometimes downplayed due to different companies having the rights to the characters. However, there have been nods to the connections here and there. Go!

This OTHER hero is a relative of the Lone Ranger. Really. And had his own television show. And a side-Kick. And a mask-a little like the Lone Ranger, on TV. And cool gadgets...including a sonic one and a gas one. And a really Beauty of a car. And a cool theme song-mostly Al Hirt on trumpet playing a version of Rimsky-Korsakov. If George can't get this now, he needs black coffee or something.

Cool World Kim Basinger Batman

The 13th Warrior has the warriors face Grendel. Readers of Beowulf may recall the story had 3 monsters. Decades later, an elderly Beowulf faces a dragon. In the relevant part of the story, the part I read in school twice (in different schools), Beowulf faces Grendel and Grendel's mother. In Friday the 13th, who were the monsters? ;)

That's it. Amazingly, there's a thematic connection between the bad guys in both movies. I didn't think about that until later. (I'd post spoilers to explain.)

Antonio Banderas stars as an Arab in the 10th century AD who comes to the aid of some Norsemen who return to their homeland to fight supernatural horrors- starting with an indestructible murderer who was seen killing teenagers at a Crystal Lake. (I got slightly symbolic there, but I think that one's still clear enough. I did it to make the story sound a little less "Wait-what???")

"As if men don't desire strangers! As if... ohh, I refuse to speak of disgusting things, because they disgust me! You understand, boy? Go on, go tell her she'll not be appeasing her ugly appetite with MY food... or my son! Or do I have tell her because you don't have the guts! Huh, boy? You have the guts, boy?" "Shut up! Shut up!" "No! I will not hide in the fruit cellar! Ha! You think I'm fruity, huh? I'm staying right here. This is my room and no one will drag me out of it, least of all my big, bold son!" And the $40,000? Who got that?" "The swamp."

I really should have stopped and "done the math." Once we got this post, I had enough information to know this was going to go nowhere as a discussion.... There we had it. 1) Burden of Proof, according to chockfull, is a "FALLACY." 2) Burden of Proof is based, not on the actual claims, but on who spoke first. 3) Volume actually matters as part of the discussion. It was so demonstrably false I just posted a correction, and never thought what it means when a poster can actually post that and mean it. Someone who doesn't understand Burden of Proof- and refuses to understand it now even after it's explained- is NOT in the discussion to exchange ideas and examine evidence. They're in for other things. And reasoned discourse is going out the window. I don't know. I'll have to read Pete's post carefully. Maybe he can bring something to this discussion that it's been lacking until now.