Raf

Those are guesses, WordWolf. No one has any way of knowing, and I have steadily acknowledged that proving or disproving interpretation and prophecy is impossible. It is an untestable premise, unlike SIT. However, I was asked to explain how I faked lengthy messages. I believe I have answered that question to the satisfaction of the unbiased reader. Improv is not hard. Actors don't require PhD's to learn the trade. They're not smarter than the rest of us. They're simply taught techniques for improvisation -- identical to what we were taught in the Intermediate Class. The difference is, we weren't told it was improv. We were told it was a manifestation. And everyone got the same character: God. It's really easy, once you recognize what happened. But I can't prove it, nor can anyone "prove" their messages were really divinely inspired. The natural explanation makes more sense to me than the supernatural. Did anyone find the Biblical instructions on the manifestations of interpretation and prophecy? I mean the actual how-to instructions?

I have decided that it is against the interest of a constructive conversation to continue even reading certain posts. I tried to continue responding in the hopes that a dialogue could be saved and readers would see a healthy discussion of the issues. I do not believe that is what is now taking place, nor has it been for a very long time. Thank you for those who have followed this far. I'll keep reading, or you can DM me if you have questions you'd like me to address privately.

Don't get me wrong: repeat the verse all you want. But we disagree on it, and we're not going to change each other's minds. So by all means, cite any scripture you want, including this one. Just don't pretend I haven't addressed it.

I just posted this in the doctrinal thread. I believe the subjects of both threads have converged on this point, so I am reposting here: Clearly there is disagreement on whether I Cor. 14:2 is a blanket statement that covers all situations (making SIT untestable) or whether it is, in context, the normative expectation of a worship meeting experience. I hold the latter view and believe it to be consistent with a plain reading of scripture. The former view, in my opinion, is a retrofit designed to explain why the people on earth best educated in the classification and identification of language have been unable to identify a language in any sample of modern SIT or to even classify modern SIT as language. This is a difference of doctrinal opinion. Endlessly repeating this verse, by either side, is fruitless. It is here that our impasse is unresolvable. At the risk of violating rules, I will make a statement that looks to the future instead of the past, including the recent past: any future assertion that I have not addressed this verse or provided an alternative explanation for the one offered above by Chockfull is a blatant, bald-faced, intentional LIE.

Clearly there is disagreement on whether I Cor. 14:2 is a blanket statement that covers all situations (making SIT untestable) or whether it is, in context, the normative expectation of a worship meeting experience. I hold the latter view and believe it to be consistent with a plain reading of scripture. The former view, in my opinion, is a retrofit designed to explain why the people on earth best educated in the classification and identification of language have been unable to identify a language in any sample of modern SIT or to even classify modern SIT as language. This is a difference of doctrinal opinion. Endlessly repeating this verse, by either side, is fruitless. It is here that our impasse is unresolvable. At the risk of violating rules, I will make a statement that looks to the future instead of the past, including the recent past: any future assertion that I have not addressed this verse or provided an alternative explanation for the one offered above by Chockfull is a blatant, bald-faced, intentional LIE.

I just meant, asking me for what I think of I Cor. 14:2 as if I never addressed it before... I'm sorry, I know the rules of the forum, but how can he say that with a straight face? I mean, that's just a bald-faced... It's just... How can anyone ask for that as if I hadn't provided it on this thread repeatedly? And on the other thread... I mean... Seriously, how do I address this without breaking rules? Someone tell me, please.

Are you serious?

Why should anyone believe you will accept a scientific test after you JUST SAID you are going to retreat to your convenient misapplication of I Cor. 14:2 when you don't like the results?

I do not accept your interpretation of I Cor. 14:2. Your demand for proof suddenly became figurative when I started asking you for a standard you would accept. Your failure to see a qualitative difference between an allegation that someone witnessed a miracle versus someone admitting he faked it is your failure alone. Everyone else can see the difference but you. What you claim about holding me to a consistent standard is demonstrably false.

I can meet my standard. My standard accepts free vocalization as the mechanism and accepts the capacity of the field of linguistics to determine whether what I'm producing is a language. I cannot meet YOUR standard, because you have not provided one. Tell us again how you never asked me to prove anything.

Sanguinetti's a big boy. After my post (111), which you claim chased him off, he posted again (117, 120). So your accusation that I chased him off was actually... false. Everything I've written in this thread that's off topic has been in response to you. You are free to return to the topic anytime you want. I'm not stopping you.

Right. ANYthing can be a language to you, so linguistics is out as an arbiter of who's faking. So what's IN? How do I prove I'm faking it, which you asked me to do? Whatever answer YOU come up with, BOTH our glossolalia can be subject to. Or are you going to admit that you were never serious when you asked for proof in the first place?

Then again I ask, tell me what standard of proof YOU will accept as proof of fakery, and I will subject my glossolalia AND YOURS to the same standard. I can do this all day.

I will take that as an admission that you knew when you asked me for proof that there was no proof you would accept, and that you were just playing games with the thread topic.

I'll take that as an admission that you cannot find any instance of me saying or supporting the "no resemblance" line. Which makes sense, because the accusation was false. Thank you. And I'm MORE than tired of you trying to catch me in my own words and making an issue of them and then retreating when I demand documentation for the things you falsely claim I said. No one's stopping you from returning this thread to the subject of scripture.

Whatever. If you have no way for me to prove I was faking, stop demanding that proof of me. If you have some way for me to prove I was faking, subject your own glossolalia to that method as well. It's really that simple. OldSkool: That video is child abuse.

Show me where, or apologize for the misrepresentation. I'm tired of the games YOU'RE playing.

Now, now, are you calling me a hypocrite? Because that would be namecalling. Wouldn't want to go there, now, would we? YOUR standards are ridiculous. You do not accept the mechanism by which people fake SIT, nor do you accept the ability of linguists to call a glossolalia sample non-language. I accept both. So unless YOU provide me with some type of proof you will accept, your request for proof is ridiculous by YOUR standard, not mine.

And PRESTO! Something I've said all along, I say again, and it's treated as though it's some kind of new, earth-shattering admission! I have always said SIT resembles human language in superficial ways. Superficial. It's spoken out loud. The speaker hears the message. There are pauses consistent with what sounds like commas and periods. I have said this all along. Modern SIT resembles human language in every way THAT CAN BE FAKED.

Your request for proof of fakery is unreasonable by your own ridiculous standards. Tell me what proof you would accept, and not only will I provide it, but I will gladly put YOUR fakery to the same test.

That was brutal. But I'd be lying if I said it wasn't as charming as advertised. Knowing what we now know really changes the whole game with this predatory huckster.

The whole "free mouthnoisization" refutation, if it can be called that, is not a refutation at all. It is a dodge and a smokescreen that does nothing to refute the recognized, innate human capacity to string along a bunch of syllables with the conscious or subconscious intent of replicating what a language should sound like. You can call it a refutation, but it's not. Frankly, I consider it evidence that this discussion is not being treated seriously. It's a transparent dodge, and everyone except the perpetrator of it can see it as such. Where is the Biblical instruction for producing interpretation and prophecy? Why does TWI's instruction, which has no Biblical basis, so perfectly match the instruction given to actors for improv purposes?

That looks like free mouthnoiseization to me.

Clearly you take anything the way you want to, so you just go right ahead. But for the record, I never said that in the first place. Rather, I have always conceded that SIT resembles human language. The resemblance is superficial. It's spoken and heard, and people pause as they speak it. Big whoop. It's not a human language. It's made up, by you. Through free vocalization. Which exists. In the meantime, I will take the facts as your admission that you're being less than accurate in falsely insinuating that I said SIT meets none of the characteristics on Hockett's list. I will also interpret your silence on the matter to mean you could not find any indication that Samarin concluded glossolalia meets 10 items on the list (or 11, depending on your ability to count).

Yes. The claims are qualitatively different. Clearly you do not understand that, and I am through trying to explain it to you. No, when you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge a basic human capacity as defined and recognized both by laymen and those with training in both linguistics AND Christian theology, you have stubbornly pretended that the mechanism doesn't exist when it does. That does nothing to detract from my argument. It only gives you a false confidence in yours. I have employed no logical fallacy. You have manufactured one, and you are the only one to study this issue to pretend I am wrong here. Not proving it to your satisfaction, but only because you are willing to believe anything, including admitted fakery, is a language until proved otherwise, which is a bass-ackward application of the burden of proof. And then he'll accept it. I promise! SIT is not "code. You are retrofitting the Biblical definition of glossa to suit your own argument. They were not mediums. They were frauds. You're the only one here who still thinks they were mediums. Your experience is irrelevant. The fact is that TWI trained us all in the improv techniques needed to produce convincing-sounding interpretations and prophecies. The training was right there. You helped provide it.