Raf

In the ex-twi "fold," I see plenty of people who try to hold onto the good of what they left behind while discarding the bad. I see plenty of people redefine for themselves what it means to be Christian and choose for themselves a more excellent way. I see a few who choose other, non-Christian religions. And I see a few who reject religion entirely. This is a discussion forum about TWI. By its very nature, it's going to lead us all to an inflated sense of the ex-twi experience. But I suspect if we think TWI's result is any different than those who leave other organizations, we'd be in for a polite awakening. Plenty, PLENTY of books and websites for former members of other Christian groups will show similar breakdowns. We're not alone. We're not unique. WordWolf and I concur on this: I speak without having conducted even an INformal survey. :)

You need to get out more. :)

Ok, this is going to sound strange coming from me, but I'm going to defend VPW on a point. Yes, I know who I'm going to sound like for you GSC old-timers, but bear with me. I do think we have a case here of our memories of what VPW said being in conflict with what he actually said. Now, I'm going by my own memory here, and my VPW books are somewhere in a dump in southern Florida, or hopefully have been recycled into something useful, like an egg carton, but... I don't recall Wierwille ever saying that no one can fake SIT per se. What he said about SIT, in my memory, was that it could not be counterfeited. That is, if a person speaks in tongues, it IS of God. Our debate here has been whether anyone is speaking in tongues. My contention is we did not and you are not. If you were, you'd be producing a language. I believe Wierwille would agree with that definition. Namely, if you say you SIT and you produce a language, that's God at work, because the devil cannot counterfeit it. That's why when Peter saw the household of Cornelius speak in tongues, he knew right away that they were saved. Because the devil cannot counterfeit it. How did he know they weren't faking it? Doesn't say, but why would they? It's not like he tried to lead them into tongues. It's not like he said, ok, here's how it works... It was spontaneous. They just did it. And just watching them do it was enough for Peter to conclude this was genuine. And since the devil can't counterfeit it, then that makes it of God, which makes them saved. Voila! So, yes, Wierwille said it can't be counterfeited. But I honestly don't remember him saying it can't be faked. He himself admitted to faking it once, but that was a little different. That's my memory. Yours may differ. If anyone has a RTHST or Green Book handy, let me know. [I know what you're thinking. If the household of Cornelius speaking in tongues was good enough for Peter, why isn't it good enough for me? Simple. George Washington convinced his father of his personal integrity by confessing to chopping down the cherry tree, but that's not enough to convince me of George Washington's personal integrity. If you know why in the latter case, you know why in the former].

Ok, we cross-posted. I see your peace-out and raise you a best wishes!

Whether a testable claim is being made is not a matter of personal feelings. It is a matter of what the Bible claims is produced in SIT. Because we disagree about THAT, debating it is pointless for us. We identified that impasse years ago. I have elsewhere stated my case for why I believe the Biblical claim is consistent with how I present it (move over to the main doctrinal area for Word Wolf's most recent thread on it, which has links to the prior threads). Nothing I see in the counterargument impresses me to alter what I believe to be the Biblical case for SIT.

I disagree, Chockfull. As a participant, not as a moderator. Certain posters are attempting to deflect the discussion instead of contribute to it, and I consider that trolling.

Fair enough, Chockfull.

And just to be abundantly clear, I CAN be right about SIT but wrong about God. I do not see how I can be wrong about SIT but right about God. I mean, I suppose it's possible, but I don't see it.

But if you make a testable claim and follow through, then you have something that cannot be answered in natural terms. You don't though. You made the testable claim, but when the time came to follow through, you redefined the claim to make it untreatable, allowing you the privilege of making it an issue of faith. Biblical SIT is not a matter of faith. It's a matter of making a claim that can be objectively demonstrated and evaluated by a disinterested third party. The notion that it's untestable comes from a repeated failure to identify a language in any sample of SIT, ever, except of course for those cases where the key participants are now anonymous, on the other side of the planet, or both.

The basis for discussion remains that a testable claim is made. If the claim is proved, I am wrong. If the claim is not proved, I may still be wrong, but we'll have to use other means to determine it. That is why I keep saying (and Word Wolf keeps demonstrating by example) that you can agree with me on this topic and remain a committed Christian. And I'm not taking the bait: We have gone over what the Biblical claim is too many times to come back to a debate about it again. If you don't agree that the Bible promises a known human language, you need not. But I personally consider that a debate victory, to see a clear biblical promise retreated from with such enthusiasm that it turns an obvious, testable claim to an ethereal generator of warmth and fuzziness that cannot be disproved any more than the Mormons bosom warmth.

I've mentioned repeatedly that I'm waiting for publication of research on SIT and phonemic inventory. Didn't want anyone to think I had forgotten about it since it still hasn't been published four years later. I didn't resurrect this thread, and I did need to be reminded about certain vocabulary terms -- a handy thing to do when you're engaging in a discussion about language

"Serves the same purpose/achieves the same benefits" is subjective. If it gives you the warm and fuzzies, so be it. But that's not the Biblical claim. The Biblical claim is speaking in languages, not merely promoting warm and fuzzies.

By the way, chockfull, your self-reporting of distinct phonemes in your SIT that cannot be accounted for in languages you know or sounds you have been exposed to would be a lot more impressive coming from a disinterested third party who analyzed your SIT and identified a language, rather than someone trying to win a debate on the internet who claims to be keeping up with the studies we're discussing but does not recognize a word that came up dozens of times in each of those studies. Just sayin.

Really? Because if you're actually producing languages now, then you're doing something that cannot be explained naturally, thus confirming the supernatural. But if you're doing something any schmoe in an acting class can do regardless of religious belief, then you're not doing anything that cannot be explained naturally, so the question reverts to you: Why are you impressed at your ability to do what anyone can do?

Where did I pick up the word phonemes? You critique and dismiss the research I cited repeatedly, research YOU ALSO CITED to defend your position, and you wonder where I picked up that word?Bruh, if you really reviewed the research the way you claim you have, you would have picked up that word too. It's all over everything we reviewed.

Trolling trolling trolling, keep the nonsense rolling Contributing nothing, RAWHIDE!

That post added nothing to the discussion. I'm not saying you're being a troll. Because I can't prove it. But you can't prove you're not.

I am starting to find it hilarious, the judgmental attitude with which GSC is condemned as judgmental. It's old, though.

In plain English... I think to answer the question is to be in his heart and judge accordingly. I am not qualified to answer the question in the title of this thread. I am qualified, we all are, to have suspicions based on the available evidence. Here's mine: Remember how Wierwille said he was in those theological cemeteries... errr, seminaries, and they talked him out of God's Word until he no longer believed the words "holy" or "bible" on the cover? (Honestly, why wouldn't he believe "bible"? But I digress). I believe that is the last honest thing Wierwille said. Everything that comes after that moment is consistent with a con man using people's hunger and thirst for righteousness for his personal gain. EVERYTHING. Victor Paul Wierwille, in my opinion, was no more a Christian than I am today, no more confident in Genesis through Revelation than L. Ron Hubbard was in Dianetics. He sold a product he did not buy.

Oh, that's different. If you continued after you knew it was B.S, yeah. That's another story. And I tried to be clear that lying was a bad word choice FOR ME. I did not intend to extend it to you. "Talked ourselves into what we wanted to be true" would be more accurate for me.

I made a conscious decision to stop using variations of the word "lying" in connection with this topic. I think the desire was sincere and the belief was sincere. I think we were encouraged to continue from the moment the first sounds came out of our mouths, and we were explicitly told that doubts about whether this was real were devilish. We reinforced ourselves and each other by sharing the experience in public. We were deceived. We received ourselves. And we WANTED it to be true. Some of us still do, to the point of redefining the experience beyond all biblical bounds, throwing up obstacles to make the biblical claim untreatable when it is quite testable. No one is lying. But no one is producing a language. No, you're not. No, you're not. No, sorry, you're just not. Yes, you do have to prove it. No, I do not have to disprove it. I am not the one making a claim. I am denying yours. "Lying" is a poor word choice (for me, as I've used the term). Hence, I ceased using it. I'm not disagreeing with Bolshevik. I'm just choosing a different vocabulary and explaining why. But the emperor is naked. There's no dragon in the garage. There were no wiretaps. Is means is. There were no WMD. The evidence is more than just absent.

What can the dragon do? You don't have a Dragon. Is it something unique? You don't have a dragon. Why is that question not asked? Because you don't have a dragon. If something is done that only a dragon in the garage can do... Then you will have established that you have a dragon. But you f-ing don't, and this is getting boring. That is actually this whole discussion in a nutshell. You claim this dragon can do something, I'm saying prove it, and you're saying I can't disprove it. I have no obligation to disprove it. Prove it can, or there's nothing to discuss.

I can't contain my exci.... oops. Almost spoke too soon. It's contained. In a broken Ziploc. No danger of spills though

It's neither incomplete nor faulty. You have not even ATTEMPTED to make a case that it is incomplete or faulty. The evidence refutes your false position, so you reject the evidence. That is "evidence be damned," whether you choose to phrase it that way or not.

And frankly i think youre predisposed to question my intentions in the first place, which would concern me if i had an ounce of respect for your discussion methods. That not being the case, "La Vie!"