Raf

I am not presenting misinformation. Samarin DOES list all 16 items on Hockett's list. Then he states FIVE (not six, and not "the six" or "the five") which glossa does not meet. He discounts glossa as language PRIMARILY on the absence of those features. HE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE OTHER FEATURES. In no way, shape or form did I ever say glossa meets no items on the list. In fact, in the other thread, I specifically outlined which items glossa clearly meets, so to say I have claimed glossa meets NO items on the list, after I specifically outlined which items glossa DOES meet, is (to put it as diplomatically as I can without violating rules) demonstrably and documentably untrue.

After considering how to respond to Chockfull’s recent post (1742) requesting proof of fakery, I have decided that I must decline to answer. I decline in large part because there is no way to respond without quickly inviting another round of contentious namecalling. I will reduce the response I would have given to these brief points: First, there is no parity between an admission of fakery and an assertion of a true demonstration of miraculous spiritual power. The former is an ordinary claim that requires ordinary evidence. An admission by the speaker suffices, in my opinion. This is firsthand testimony of the person doing the faking. No greater authority exists. The latter is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. An assertion is not good enough, especially one coming from neither the speaker nor the person or persons who understood the utterance, and especially considering we can’t even get the same story told the same way twice on the same thread by the same person. If you really believe the requirement for proof is equal in both cases, I humbly but firmly disagree with you. “I saw someone else do something impossible without direct divine intervention. Couldn’t tell you who it was, but wow, it left such an impression on me!” “I believe you, because you said so.” VS. “I didn’t do anything extraordinary.” “PROVE IT!” … I’m sorry, what? Second, this thread has shown, on one side, a steady refusal to accept the legitimacy of free vocalization as an innate human ability, the mechanism of fakery. Proving fakery without being able to cite the mechanism for such fakery is not possible, because a crucial “given” is taken away by fiat. Third, this thread has shown, on one side, a steady refusal to accept the capacity of the field of linguistics to determine whether any utterance, including gibberish, is or was a language to someone, somewhere at some time. Any string of sounds uttered by anyone under any circumstances is impossible to “disprove” as a language, or so the argument goes. So anything uttered might be a language. And faking it is impossible. With those premises as givens, proving fakery is impossible. Therefore, it is impossible for me to prove that I faked speaking in tongues because there is no evidence that would be accepted as such proof. We can’t analyze the output, and the mechanism, accepted by experts in the field of linguistics and articulated most efficiently by someone with a significant background in both linguistics and Christian theology, is rejected on this thread by fiat. As such, I cannot respond to the demand for proof of fakery unless I am permitted to reject the givens. It's not that I don't want to. It's simply because the demand for proof is coming from someone who has demonstrated no willingness to accept any proof that is offered. It’s like asking someone to prove they can drive a car by blindfolding him and putting him in the back seat of a vehicle that has had the tires, steering wheel and engine removed. This is not a valid challenge and does not merit being handled as such. As for interpretation and prophecy being faked, I think I have already stated that it's impossible to prove this one way or another, which I suspect is why this thread has focused almost entirely on SIT. That a human being is capable of extemporaneously improvising a lengthy message "from God" is, in my view, self-evident. Testing this is rather simple: you give someone a character to emulate who is NOT God, and you have the person speak in character as that person. It is difficult, at first, but with practice and increased familiarity with the character (call it "excellor sessions," if you wish), the speaker's ability to do this will improve. What you would expect to see with such an experiment is a stilted beginning followed by greater and greater proficiency as the practice continues and familiarity with the character grows. This is demonstrated, for example, in the movie "Like Crazy," which was filmed entirely without a script. The actors improvised all their lines on set, knowing the backgrounds of their characters. In interpretation and prophecy (which we were taught using methods that are conspicuously absent from the Bible, by the way), we have the character: God. Improv does not require expert training to begin. Anyone can do it, given the proper instructions. TWI gave us those instructions. They are not in the Bible. TWI taught us to improvise the character of God and bring forth messages in His voice. We have oodles of background information on Him. And we are told what kinds of messages we will bring forth (words of edification and exhortation and comfort). Voila! Guess what we produce? Then along comes CES/STFU... I mean, STFI, and they tell their followers that interpretation and prophecy will produce message types that are distinct from each other, and Voila! Guess what happens? Stilted or abruptly discontinued messages, in my view, do more to demonstrate fakery than they do to demonstrate the validity of the practice! Proof? No, not an ounce of proof. But humanly possible to fake? Absolutely, the protestations of those who insist it's impossible notwithstanding. I do not ask anyone to prove their words of interpretation and prophecy were genuine, nor can I prove they were not. All I can do is demonstrate that faking such messages is far from impossible. I believe I have done that here.

I believe Modgellan specifically admonished against accusing each other of lying, by the way. Not to be a nitpicker or anything. But still. Lying is an accusation against another person's intent. Accusing someone of being mistaken, or misreporting something... Not quite the same as lying because it only reflects outcome, not intent. So let us agree either to drop that word from the discussion or to consider it fair game. Either way is fine by me.

Personally, I'm not "avoiding" a discussion of scriptures on the subject. My view is that the scriptures are not in contention. The first scriptural question is, what should SIT produce? I thought the answer was rather obvious, then got harassed like a delinquent taxpayer until I laid out my response. The second question is, if I'm right, what changed? It should be noted that the question of whether I'm right or wrong is completely independent of my ability to answer the question of what changed. Maybe there's a "how to" that we're all missing. Maybe we err in thinking SIT is at our will and not at God's direction. Maybe it's not available anymore. Tongues shall cease. Unlike prophecy and revelation, the cessation of tongues is NOT directly tied to "when that which is perfect has come" in Corinthians. Maybe that's a more significant clue than we've previously recognized. Whether I successfully answer what changed or not, the veracity or lack thereof of SIT is unaffected.

Not sure I agree with that breakdown, waysider. Even after the edit...

Oh snap.

Precisely why we listed all 16 items, one by one, and showed that Samarin could not have been implying what you are inferring. Just because you inferred something doesn't mean Samarin implied it. You would have to ignore the list itself to believe that Samarin made any such implication Go ahead, list the items, and tell us with a straight face that Samarin found glossolalia met those criteria. He didn't. HE COULDN'T have. Go ahead, pretend we haven't already been through the list. Show me where Samarin says glossolalaie meets 11 criteria, item by item. We'll see who's doing the misrepresenting of the research... Clarification: you'll succeed with six items, tops. All consistent with made up pseudolanguage. I know this because we had this discussion already.

Where did i say glossolalia meets no items on the list? I never said that, nor did Samarin say it meets 10 items. The quote you cited does not say what you claim it does. If it did, you'd be claiming Samarin said it meets 11 items on the list. Basic math. Please don't ask me to prove 16-5=11. We've been over this. You acknowledged it at the time. Why are you acting as if this discussion never took place?

We already had the Hockett's list discussion. We went over the items on the list one by one. You know that Samarin nowhere states or implies that glossolalia meets 10 of 16 criteria on Hockett's list. We've been over this. I don't understand why you persist in making an assertion you yourself previously acknowledged is not true.

That is also not accurate. Samarin did NOT find that glossic samples met 10 of 16 criteria in Hockett's list. That is not what he reported. We went through Hockett's list item by item. You are misreporting his findings after this assertion has been refuted. I know this is off topic for this thread, but I thought it important, considering the handful of people who are following this one and did not follow the previous one, to make the same correction here that I had to make over there.

Cman, Socks said it on this thread, Tom said it on another thread. You said something, but you didn't elaborate. I don't think anyone is counting your story in those anecdotes purely on the basis that you didn't tell it. WordWolf, I didn't even think of the whole "slain in the spirit" phenomenon. Here you have people claiming a spiritual overpowering, with TWI saying it's not of God. But they're asking God for a fish. Are we to suppose that God is allowing a demonic force to overpower these people because they want something spiritual? They ask God for a fish and he gives them a scorpion? Or is the more likely explanation that they are doing these things themselves and attributing their "wacky" behavior to God? Interesting parallel.

I've really been pondering this, but I don't have a substantive answer for you. In large part, it's because any advice I offer would be based on numerous presuppositions (starting with the truthfulness of what you describe, which, without more information, might easily be unfair to the man we are describing). So I answer with the greatest hesitation, and even then only as generally as I can. First and foremost, consider what's in the best interest of the children. We're all somewhat familiar, I think, with the benefit (by general comparison) of children being raised in a household where both parents are present. Is this man's actual abusiveness (mental, emotional, heaven forbid otherwise) strong enough to outweigh that consideration? Then leave, and don't look back. You brought kids into the world. Protecting them and ensuring their health and nurturing is your top priority. Let's assume that the answer to the above question is yes, the children are better off without him. She needs to identify any obstacle to her children's well-being and do everything in her power to remove those obstacles. This can be exceedingly painful (emotionally) and wrenching. It may involve separating yourself from people and situations you've grown to trust and depend on. You say she's in a "fundamentalist Christian cult." I don't know what you mean by that. She is the sole arbiter of whether that cult is the right place for her to be, and for her children to be. If it is not, then she should cut ties without a shred of guilt. Any "faith" that subordinates the well-being of my kids to itself is not a "faith" worth holding onto, in my opinion. We have a slew of unanswered questions: does she have family able and willing to provide the kind of emotional and physical support she is going to need to stay strong throughout what promises to be a very long and difficult process? Can she provide for herself and her children without his assistance (his assistance would be great, but banking on it would not be wise)? I don't know, those are some initial thoughts. I did not include prayer and profound self-reflection explicitly, but those are to be understood as implicit in everything I'm suggesting. I think the bottom line of what I'm saying is to put the kids first, not as an excuse to do what she wants to do anyway, but as a priority that ultimately determines the actions she will take. I wish her well.

You got the first movie correct and one (major) word in the second movie's subtitle correct (and one minor word). So I'm going to say yes, take it away: The correct answer was Three Men and a Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend

For those unwilling to go back a page or two to find the post we're discussing, here it is, with a little added emphasis to show that what I objected to was not "a barrage of scripture" but how it was received, along with a recognition that it was probably not meant that way, probably won't be interpreted that way by everyone reading it, and I added an invitation to continue challenging me. Note that I complained not one whit about a previous post in which he went over the same verses I did, in a little more detail, and came to pretty much the same conclusion I did (almost, I dare say, as though he had not read my post at all). Neither did I complain about future posts from the same poster after he took me up on my closing comment. At no point did I tell him to stop posting or to stop posting scripture.

Hint: the second movie starred William Kaat, also known as the Greatest American Hero. It was also one of those movies with a subtitle, which I am including as the name of the movie for the purposes of this thread (Kind of like how you can refer to "Superman IV" or "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace."

No. Report it. I have no problem with him posting what he wants, nor do I see a problem in posting my response to it.

This has been proven and this has been demonstrated do not mean the... You know what? This isn't worth it.

Um, no. I have no problem with him posting anything he wants. I also have no problem with informing him, you, or anyone else that assuming I am unfamiliar with these verses and somehow overlooked them in the 25 years since I first began examining them, strikes me as patronizing. I am not asking him not to quote scripture. By all means, quote what you guys want. But there was nothing inappropriate about my comment and I invite you to report it to the other mods if you think there was.

Ok, I'm sorry, but as many times as this has been asserted by you and corrected, you are still making the same refuted allegation. So let me remind everyone that I never said "this has been proven." I said this has been demonstrated. I said that the evidence all leans in one direction. I stated my opinion as fact (it's called making an assertion, and everyone, including you, has done that in this conversation and others). I have never said this was proven. So I would appreciate it, deeply, if you would stop saying that I have. I have not. You listed a whole bunch of places where you claim I made that statement, but not one of the citations you listed has me saying this was proven. So please, I urge you, stop repeating the refuted and false statement that I have. I have not. Stop it. Please.

If our notifications at the bottom of the GSC home page are correct, today is John A. Lynn's birthday. I hope he is happy and healthy.

New rule/request, to avoid this kind of thing in the future: If you don't recognize the actor, you're entitled to request a pic. At that point, either the original poster or someone who agrees to stay out of the round can post the pic. Here's our kid:

Since we're talking about spoken language, the notion of written language is separate. "Glossographia" would be much easier to analyze than glossolalia, for reasons that should be obvious. I think the Bible is clear about what speaking in tongues is, and what it produces, from its first usage on, and the modifier "in tongues" is added to differentiate between that and the normal speech of the speaker. In my long post, I think I sometimes used the word "metaphorically" when a better word would have been "firguratively," which is what I meant. I apologize if that caused any confusion, but I think you caught on: "metaphorically" and "by metonymy" cannot mean the same thing. "Figuratively" and "by metonymy" can, and the latter is what I intended to convey. I'm not concerned particularly with WHAT the figure of speech is; just that a figure of speech is being employed. Your posts suggest you understood that, but I feel obliged to clarify anyway.

Reasonable minds may differ on which movie is well known and which is ridiculously well known. My thinking: the comedy is well known, and he plays a featured but not crucial character. The fantasy is ridiculously well known, and he is one of the key characters. The lesser known is a run of the mill, dime a dozen coming of age comedy, and as I didn't see it, I don't know how crucial he is to the plot. His signature line in the third movie is, jubilantly delivered, "I can't feel my legs!"

Kind of easy, if you remember the second movie at all. Ted Danson, Steve Gutenberg and Tom Selleck star as happy-go-lucky bachelors whose lives are turned upside-down when they suddenly have to take care of a small, recently discovered brontosaurus.