Raf

Chockfull, who are you talking to? I'm not reading your posts anymore, here on out. I'm out of toilet paper.

I missed the part where I was asked to quote Samarin. I'm tempted. But instead, let me just cute page 50, paragraph 2, the last six lines. You know, the part where he says he was able to compare LeBaron's so-called language to American glossolalia and concluded that they were remarkably different because LeBaron produced a real, human language? What's that? That's not what he said? Oh. My bad.

I will no doubt now be accused of expressing my opinion as documented, indisputable truth. Unlike last time, this time that accusation will be true. It will also withstand any objective scrutiny. Chockfull is attempting to waste my time. I will not take the bait. I am sorry, but you have no credibility with me as an honest searcher into the matter we are discussing. That's also my opinion, and I am stating it as fact. It's CERTAINLY been well-documented on this thread.

LeBaron CLAIMED to have tracked down the language. Samarin checked it out. He did not agree. Read the flipping report.

When you employ a chain of logic that leads to a patently absurd conclusion, you are obliged to uncover the flaw in your logical chain that brought you to that conclusion. The presumption must be that there's a flaw in the logical chain. Even if, despite your best efforts, you are unable to find the flaw in your logic, you are entitled, in fact required, to presume there is a flaw until you do find it. I'll give you an example. When I was a small child, one of my teachers tried to prove I had 11 fingers. We started by counting down from the left hand: 10,9,8,7,6. Then we counted up from the right hand. 1,2,3,4,5. Six on one hand. Five on the other. 11 fingers. Now, as a small child, I knew enough to know the conclusion was wrong. But my understanding of logic and reasoning, at the time, was too immature to spot the flaw. I only knew that there must BE a flaw because I knew I had 10 fingers and not 11. That fact was indisputable. Arguing the indisputable fact was a waste of time. The issue at hand was to identify and correct the logical flaw. ... We have been presented with a "chain of logic" that has led to the "conclusion" that free vocalization as an innate human ability that anyone can do, Christian or non-Christian, spiritually energized or not, does not exist. But free vocalization as so defined DOES exist. That incontrovertible fact is not subject to debate. Children do it. Atheists do it. Actors do it. It is a patently obvious, documentable, easily replicated, indisputable truth. Denying it is tantamount to denying a round, spherical earth, denying that air is breathable, denying the germ theory of disease. I mean, yeah, you CAN have a discussion about those things, but only to educate the ignorant. The facts themselves are not seriously in contention. I would not engage in a debate about the existence of germs, a term someone just made up one day, if the debate was with my doctor. I would consider him unqualified to be a doctor and I'd find me another doctor. We're supposed to be impressed that "free vocalization is a made up term." What's not said, of course, is that everything is a made up term. Did the Europeans have a word for the New World before they knew it was there? What did they call bacteria, germs, viruses, AIDS, before they figured out what those things were? What's the Biblical Greek or Hebrew word for "gravity" or "solar system"? I'm not concerned that free vocalization is a made up term, because it clearly labels a documentable, real thing. If you want to argue with the LABEL, that's your choice. But the best you can do is dispute the label. The phenomenon described by the label exists, independent of it. Free vocalization is a fact. It is not my opinion stated as fact. It is, itself, a fact. Arguing it is a waste of time. The only thing that remains, for anyone so inclined, is spotting the flaw in reasoning that led to the absurd and flat out STUPID conclusion that free vocalization does not exist.

I'm a reporter, not a waste management artisan. Doesn't have the same ring to it.

Either you guys are closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge, or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated by the presence of a clean, unmarked Bible in your community. Well, you got trouble, my friends...

Ok, I'll bite. Why is that a funny question?

Ok, simple question: cman, how many different languages do you speak? Was it one of those languages?

It was a terrific clue and answer. Well done.

I'm not going to argue about not arguing. If you don't want to share your story, fine. Don't. But I have no basis on which to share your conclusion that it's not a lost art. In this thread, some people get mad if you state an opinion as fact without proving it. Not me. I don't care what you choose to believe. I only care what you choose to argue (and I don't mean that in a negative sense). I think I Corinthians instructs the speaker to consider the listener. I'm not sure what you're getting at with that.

Ok. And that's fine. I will not press you to tell any more than you wish to, nor will I pass judgment on the account. I'm sure you can appreciate me retaining my skepticism in the absence of any more info. Nothing personal. But it would not be a waste of time. At the very least, it would help affirm the faith if those who sincerely want me to be wrong.

By the way: not that this will affect me one way or another, but how much information does cman need to provide before my initial skepticism becomes unreasonable to maintain? What MUST we know to believe his story is an example of genuine Biblical SIT? What information is valuable but not a dealbreaker if not provided? Just curious to know other people's thoughts. If you think he's already provided enough information, you have no right whatsoever to accuse ME of having a low standard of proof. Just... Saying...

For me it's a bit simpler. I just had to admit I faked it. It wasn't a doctrinal realization. It was a personal one. I THINK we all did. I can't prove that. Impossible to prove. But I have been able to demonstrate two things: one, a rational human mechanism that produces the exact same result (to the best of any unbiased ability to tell) and two, any sincere person can fake it without even realizing it. So maybe cman's story will check out, if he chooses to offer more details. And I will have been proved wrong. That will say I was wrong to extrapolate to all experiences. It still demonstrates nothing about yours. That's between you and Him, no matter what I or those who disagree with me allegedly prove. Simply put, if the fact that I faked it doesn't prove you did, then the fact that someone else told the truth also doesn't prove you did.

By the way, those watching: THIS is a firsthand account. See the difference?

This outta be good

Hi cman. I think Biblical SIT is fairly clear in its expectation that the sounds that come out will be a foreign language. I see no real proof that modern SIT does this. Allegations are not proof. I see LOTS of allegations, but no proof. I therefore conclude they are not the same thing. There is such a thing as free vocalization that is an innate, human ability. That is an established, proven, incontrovertible fact that is undisputed by anyone approaching this subject with a shred of integrity. When I look at modern SIT and what it produces, and what it fails to produce, and I compare modern SIT to what's described in Acts and Corinthians as well as free vocalization, I find a partial match with Corinthians and a 100 percent match with free vocalization. The parts that match Corinthians are wholly consistent with free vocalization. As for the notion that God won't cooperate with a study: all that does is underscore how easy it is for a sincere believer to fake SIT and not even know it. Which kind of is my bleeping point, isn't it? I see not one shred of documented evidence that modern SIT is Biblical SIT. The closest is insistent "I guess you had to be there” stories. You can accept modern SIT as Biblical SIT all you want. I can't stop you. But don't lie about where the evidence points. In case it's not obvious, cman should not take the WHOLE post as directed at him.

By the way, I have no qualms about burden of proof or any other issue raised here. But it is not whoever made the claim first or loudest. It's the one making the affirmative claim, the more remarkable claim. Chockfull "sincerely" believes I am making the greater, more remarkable claim. I put Sincerely in quotes, the same way the abstract on Samarin put Language in quotes while describing SIT. You have my permission to read into that.

Don't bother, WW. You're wasting your time. An argument that seeks the truth is worth pursuing. An argument that seeks to exasperate the other side until it "wins" by sheer exhaustion is not. You have very clearly stated the burden of proof issue, as have I. But you're talking to a brick wall.

For the record. I have repeatedly stated that modern SIT does not produce human languages. I have not always labeled that my opinion, mostly because I respect your intelligence enough to not think I have to do that every single time I say it. Forgive me if I have overestimated your intelligence, but I dont believe that to be the case. I have never, ever, not a single time, referred to that opinion as a proven fact or an incontrovertible truth or (God forbid) undisputed. There is no other word for the contention that I characterized my opinion as such except for bald-faced lie. I did use those words to describe something else, something whose legitimacy and veracity has now been challenged with such a stunning lack of intellectual honesty that it's impossible to take seriously. Confronted on the LIE, Chockfull established that I have stated modern SIT does not produce language. I have never denied that. He failed to find a single time where I referred to that opinion as a proven, undisputed fact. THAT was the lie. As I've said, I'm done debating with people whose intellectual honesty I do not respect. Sorry if that offends anyone. Actually, I'm not.

Apologies to this thread. A post I intended to write on ANOTHER thread ended up here. Mea culpa.

Waysider, Free vocalization is the rational explanation for the linguistic nonsense produced in modern SIT. Confusing is trying to come up with a coherent response to it. Clarity is gained by denying it exists. Miss anything?

And now, from the people who brought you Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Lourdes, and the (mighty big) Assumption of Mary, more Tales of the Uncorroborated. Here's your host, Joe Isuzu! I have no basis on which to assume you were trying to be funny rather than really making this mistake. I hope it was a joke.

I put all "it really happened, I swear" anecdotes into the same category as ufo abductions, Mary Mother of God sightings and Jesus on Rye sightings (although that last category at least has the good sense not to hide the toast and just say "trust me").

Chockfull, you have no credibility. I will not answer you anymore. I was enjoying this for a bit, but you b.s. has pushed me too far. Keep posting what you want. I decline to sift through it anymore. I'm a reporter, not a sewer worker.