Raf

To be clear, as someone who does not believe the Bible and doesn't think this stunt is possible, if you were to SIT and produce a language you had not previously learned, the only problem I would have with the word "impressed" is that it would be a PROFOUND understatement. Free vocalization doesn't impress me. Likewise, chewing gum doesn't impress me. I mean, nothing that anyone can do impresses me.

So. For the curious among us. This thread actually IS about me and my change of heart. So I'd call it fair game. Just sayin.

Big phony.

Yes yes, but there's common courtesy. You don't really want me venturing into every thread in doctrinal and saying "you know this was all made up by iron age goat herders who didn't know where the sun goes at night, don't you?" I mean, even I would get bored. Plus it's rude.

Plenty of people believe the Bible is true but modern SIT is not. I am not among them, so it would be dishonest of me to weigh in, except in trying to see what the Bible says on an intellectual level. I'm not averse to that. BUT at that point we're no longer questioning faith and it's a purely doctrinal question. An atheist view, I've found, is not welcome in such discussions.

If I'm right about SIT AND Christianity is true, then Christians need to decide the consequences on their understanding of scripture. I've already outlined three possibilities: I'm right, SIT is not available. I'm right, SIT IS available but what we did ain't it. I'm wrong but no one's proved it. I'm not asking you to join me in believing the Bible is not true. The way I see it, that leaves you with three choices. The fourth, in my opinion, is to redefine Biblical SIT. You see how much patience I have with that.

If I'm right, then you need to rethink what Paul meant. If I'm right. Why are you skipping to that part? Why not prove I'm wrong?

Assuming the Bible to be true, no. Maybe he wasn't talking to you. Maybe he was, but you're so enthralled with the counterfeit that you stopped searching for the genuine. Or maybe you're really producing languages but you're so afraid the atheist is right that you won't seek to prove it even though it's a clear promise in the Word.

I love how it being a testable claim is now MY requirement. Do you not see the irony? I'm the only one in this debate taking the Bible at its word while you struggle to make it not say what it clearly says and then blame ME for expecting it to live up to its implications. It's almost like I'm the believer here and you're the skeptics? You should jump at the opportunity to prove faith in the Word will deliver the promise of the Word. But you don't believe that any more than I do. That's why you have to demonize me and discredit me. Because that makes your babbling a genuine manifestation.

I think Paul "was producing a language" because he said he was. Tgat was his claim. Glossa. Language. Not babble. Glossa. If he meant babble he would have said babble. Would you like to review the scriptures on glossa again? We've done it a few times. I'm game. To think that Paul wasn't talking about languages when he wrote I would tgat you all spoke in languages strikes me as odd, at the very least. I don't see how it can be defended reasonably, Biblically, both. Unless you want words to be meaningless as a form of communication, to borrow a phrase.

No, Dr. Carson, the point I was making is that it's a testable claim. Get intellectually honest: you knew that and you're just trolling.

I am asking for evidence that isnt required in the Bible on SIT. You are correct. BUT, i am asking fir evidence that is the natural consequence of the Biblical claim. If I had a fever, and you claimed to use the gift of healing to deliver me, and an hour later I still had a fever, and the next day I still had a fever, then you could reasonably that your "healing" didn't work. It wouldn't prove anything other than you were mistaken when you said you healed me. The Biblical claim on SIT is languages. It doesn't have to "require" a test. It's a testable claim. Why are you so sure the Bible means what it doesn't say (that a glossa is not a glossa)? Why are you so sure that you won't produce a language when the Bible says you will? It's not about the "atheist agenda." I could agree with you right now that there is a God, it's Yahweh, who raised Jesus from the dead and who is always holy just and good, and it would not change the fact that the SIT you produce is not a language and therefore not Biblical SIT. Of course, it's much easier for you to claim an atheist agenda than it is to admit that you're faking it exactly how I've outlined. It's a non sequitur though. Whether I'm an atheist or WordWolf is a Christian or we switched places tomorrow, you're still babbling nonsense when the Bible says you should be producing a language, and therefore whatever you're doing, however nice it makes you feel, it's not Biblical SIT.

Mr. Confused: You seem to think I am incapable of discussing this without going on the attack. You, whose first post directed at me was an assault on my character for which you have not apologized. That's calling hypocrisy right there. And then you constantly divert from the discussion topic, which is questioning SIT, and constantly make it about what you think is wrong with Raf, which, by the way, no one f-ing asked you. I know people who work in movie theaters who don't project that much.

If it walks like free vocalizations and talks like free vocalizations, odds are, it's free vocalization. You can say it's a duck, but it's not quacking, bro!

Actually, you would know because you produce a language. Just like you know you've healed someone because they're healed. Just like you know you've moved the mountain because the mountains not in the same place anymore. Stop trying to make an objective testable statement into something that is subjective and untestable. It is intellectually dishonest.

"there is a change that occurs within the mind that allows for a new perspective on how 'reality' can be known and defined." AND THEY WONDER HOW PEOPLE CAN FOOL THEMSELVES INTO THINKING SOMETHING IS GENUINE WHEN THEY'RE FAKING IT!

Every relevant biblical reference to glossa is language. I never said the speaker understands it any time. I never said the heater understands it every time. But it is a known language every time. It's not computer code. It's not COBOL. It's not Klingon. It's a language, glossa, as Paul would have used and understood the term. So his inability to discern the language he spoke didn't suddenly make it not a language. Honestly, if it's just babble, then how is it a manifestation of the spirit? That would be like passing gas is a manifestation of the spirit, because I said so. Never mind that anyone can do it (though I confess, it's harder to fake than SIT). Now, if you told me it smells like citrus, that would be a manifestation of the spirit. But then you would have to prove it. I'm not creating a hostile environment where everyone's attacking me. You're doing that with your amateur and unwelcome psychoanalysis. I'm not the one raising defense mechanisms here. That would be those who keep coming up with excuse after excuse after excuse as to why you're not producing what the Bible promises when it comes to SIT. If you do, I will accept that evidence. But you won't even TRY. You'll convince yourself there's no way to test the claim. But there is. And you know there is. So stop projecting your defensiveness onto me and stick to the topic of discussion rather than the participants.

You'd be surprised if anyone thought speaking in languages produces languages. Listen to yourself. You have to know that's not true, TLC.

If you were actually producing a language, you would agree that it does indeed make a hill of beans of difference. But whatever you need to tell you to comfort yourself of the implications of failing to produce a language is fine by me.

Apologies for projecting my frustration onto you, Bolsh. I stand by my comment, but not the snark. I still had Dr. Frasier Crane on my mind and I projected that frustration on to you. You did not deserve that.

Did you review the video? Because that's why I posted it. You choose the words "bullying" and "tough love" and that somehow binds me to accept one or the other if SIT is proved true? That's nonsense. Do you know how to argue your point? Because it seems to me you really, really don't. If SIT is true, then it's persuasion. If it's not true, it's persuasion. That is not bullying. You can make the argument that it's manipulation, if you insist on being negative. But it's neither bullying nor "tough love." I don't even think it's necessarily malicious. I mean, I don't accuse these people of not believing the crap they're selling. I just think they're selling crap. They're almost certainly sincere. But it's not about them. They're not liars. They don't realize they're teaching free vocalization and calling it SIT. Listen to JAL. He is CONVINCED it's a language. That's nice. It's not a language. Saying it is doesn't make it so. Blaming the devil for your recognition that it's in your head doesn't make it the devil's fault. Produce a language or we have nothing to argue (well, we could argue whether a language should be the expected result, but we've already been there and back again on that subject too. You're welcome to try).

The evidence didn't change. My understanding of and analysis of the evidence changed. STOP MAKING THE THREAD ABOUT ME. The evidence was the same 20 years ago that it is today. You are not my shrink, you are not my counselor, and you are not my friend. Your faux psychoanalysis is not accurate and is not welcome. It's rude and you need to stop. Got it, pal? Knock it the f- off. I've outlined my reasons for changing my mind, and those reasons do not include being hurt by a cult. You may want to stay stuck in the cult mindset, defending doctrine, evidence-be-damned, but I am free. This is the last time I'm going to be remotely polite about those of you who have chosen to make this thread about your amateur and incompetent armchair psychology of me. The last time. Evidence will change my mind. Nothing will change yours. You're being the stubborn ones here, not me. This thread is about SIT. If you want to start a thread about RAF, you are welcome not to. Thanks.

P.S. I changed my mind about SIT years before I changed my mind about God, so I would sincerely appreciate it if you would stop trying to mix the two issues, because they are not related. And I've said that multiple times. And your continued insistence on mixing the two issues makes your debate tactic dishonest. And I'm tired of defending my position against dishonest arguments. P.P.S. I'm not atheist because I was in a cult. I'm atheist because I concluded that the evidence for a god is lacking. It's not because Wictoh Pao Wiewille huwt mah feewings. It's because when I look at god claims, I do not see substantiation that I find compelling. If I were to say the only reason you're still a theist is because a cult damaged your critical thinking skills beyond repair, you would be insulted. So understand, when you say I'm an atheist because a cult hurt me, the only appropriate thing to do afterward is wipe it and flush. Because that's what that comment is.

I did not have a "bad experience" with SIT. I had the same experience you had: Wanted it to be true, faked it and later realized it was a three-dollar bill. The only difference between your experience and mine is that I admit it. There IS something you can say or show me to prove that SIT is possible. Document the language you produce in front of a disinterested third party. That's what kills me. You guys are acting like I'm the stubborn one, when I'm the only one who has said over and over and over again that evidence will change my mind. Can you say the same? If I showed you that it could be faked, how it could be faked, how it could be done without the person involved realizing it was being faked, what the product of fake SIT would look like, that it looks exactly like what you produce, if I even got you to admit while trying to refute me that it was possible for someone to THINK they were speaking in tongues but have the "spiritual connection" turned off and thus be faking it without realizing it BY YOUR OWN ACCOUNT, would you THEN believe that maybe, just maybe, you aren't producing what the Bible says you should be producing, which is a language? Because I've covered my end of that deal. But none of you who insist I'm the stubborn one has produced actual evidence that you're producing the Biblical result of SIT, which is a language. So spare me the "nothing's going to change your mind, Raf" trope, because it's demonstrable nonsense. Produce a language, prove it (and that means not using a decades-old anecdote involving anonymous people half a world away as "proof") and I will change my mind. You won't change your mind under any circumstances. I think I'm not the one being stubborn here.

Another cool video (not affiliated past or present with TWI). I really started paying attention around 13:20, where he talks about Pride being a stumbling block. You wouldn't want to be proud, would you? “Pride keeps people from praying in tongues, because they’re afraid of how they might appear.” You wouldn't want to be afraid, would you? "Stop being afraid that it's not God." "Don't fight it." "Let the sound come out." "Don't overthink it." Notice how much time is spent getting you to overcome your fear of SIT. Why would anyone be afraid of speaking in tongues? Seriously, are you afraid of dessert? Are you afraid of your favorite meal? Why would anyone be afraid of SIT? I'll tell you what they're afraid of: when it's time to start, nothing's going to happen until they make a decision to fake it, and these teachers lay some pretty decent groundwork convincing people that they're not faking it before they even start speaking. That's how you get people to fake it without realizing they're faking it. You convince them that the fake is the real thing. Except, of course, the product is not a language. But hey! 9,000 dialects, PLUS the tongues of angels, right JAL?