Raf

I would subject Satanic claims of xenoglossia to the same burden of proof as I subject glossolalia. Neither has ever proved to produce anything that cannot be replicated by a human being acting under no supernatural pretenses.

If LeBaron had produced a genuine language, based on the account he gave, I would have little choice but to label his story and process demonic. But he did not produce a language. Or if he did, he failed to convince a linguist who was aware not only that this was a claim of xenoglossia, but EXACTLY which language(s) were allegedly produced! I know, the linguist is incompetent to identify a language, even when he knows precisely which language he's looking for. For reals.

You have not established that anything spiritual has taken place! Establish that something spiritual has taken place, and then we can argue about its source. LeBaron's ability to produce made up garbage that is not a known human language, despite his self-serving testimony to the contrary, does not prove he was energized by devil spirits. HOW GULLIBLE ARE YOU!? LeBaron was a CON MAN!

I agree, by the way. If we are going to have a conversation, we need to define our terms. A failure to agree on fundamentals nullifies the very opportunity to have a conversation, by definition. I say free vocalization exists. You dispute that. No conversation between us on this subject is even possible until you recognize how bone-headedly wrong you are on that subject.

You're not a stupid person. But you're being stupid. You're derailing this thread with nonsense. LeBaron did not operate a devil spirit. Had he produced a language, I might have been willing to consider it a demonstration of demonic power. But he did not produce a language. But I do not go hunting for supernatural explanations where there is no evidence of any. If anything, it should frighten the bejeezus out of you to realize that experts trained in linguistics cannot distinguish what is produced in SIT from what is produced by demonic influences. My conclusion lines up with Samarin's: you're both doing the same thing. Exercising an innate human ability to bring forth something that sounds like a language to you but isn't.

It is a fiction to call your challenges logic, Chockfull. Your challenges have been anything but logical. But I suppose you are entitled to express your opinion that you are presenting a logical position as fact. I'm not gonna whine about it.

I submit, sir, that you have isolated the flaw in your logic. And lo and behold, it lies in YOUR reading comprehension skills. Somehow, this does not surprise me. You constructed a strawnan. You misinterpreted and/or misrepresented Poythress AND Samarin. You knocked down the strawman and, on that basis, declared yourself to have demonstrated that you really DO have 11 fingers. But you don't. And you'll look like an idiot if you keep insisting that you do. You. Have. Ten. Fingers. Free vocalization as an innate human ability IS real. Any logical chain that leads you to conclude otherwise is false by virtue of its having led you to a demonstrably false conclusion. The problem is yours, and you alone are the one who has been less than honest about it.

What's that? Samarin concluded it was glossolalia? The same Samarin who said glossolalua NEVER produces a natural language? Well, SHI-NOLA! Thanks for proving you were wrong about LeBaron's claim being a documented case of xenoglossia, Chockfull!

Free vocalization was just fine as a "given" in this conversation until the threat it posed on the validity of SIT was fully appreciated. Now, suddenly, humans do not have this innate ability. It's a made up term, invented by linguists who don't know the difference between the spirit of God and evil spirits. We've gone from calling my methods Satanic to calling my SIT Satanic, mind you. On the basis of one person's denial of the obvious. Bleep that. Sorry.

Old School, Sorry. My apologies to you. But this has gone on too long, and I'm calling BS, and I'm not putting up with it anymore. I'm being accused of dishonesty by someone whose every chain of logic has been demonstrated to be misrepresentations of my words and of the studies we have been reviewing. To deny the demonstrated, proven existence of an innate human ability that a linguist sympathetic to the possibility of SIT has labeled free vocalization, and then to accuse ME of being in denial, is a hypocrisy I cannot stomach. Chockfull has every right to continue posting and chipping away all he wants. I have no obligation to take his distortions, misrepresentations, incomprehensions and flat out lies seriously. If that loses the argument for me, I'm comfortable with that.

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?