Raf

Let me start with the consequences of believing there's no such thing as free vocalization as an innate, human ability. It means everyone who DOES free vocalize is doing so with a spiritual energy behind him. No human being can merely DO this, unaided by spirit. The spirit is either of God or is not. Thus, anyone who free vocalizes and claims it is not energized by God is either wrong, or energized by devil spirits. So we're either lying about lying, wrong about lying, or we're deeeeeemon influenced. Please let me know if I am characterizing the terms, and the stakes, accurately.

The fact that psychics and other loons claim to produce xenoglossia (claims that are universally discredited, by the way. You seem to have left that part out for some reason) does not prove the action of a devil spirit at work. The fact that WHAT they produce appears no different to the trained linguist, at the very least, suggests that they are producing the same thing that those who claim glossolaia are producing: free vocalization claiming a spiritual energy to produce a real human language but, in reality, producing linguistic nonsense. In neither case is their any evidence that a real human language is produced. Psychics and mediums are faking it. They are not producing human languages. Neither are those who SIT. I will take that as an endorsement of the fact that you want me to show, point for point, how very ridiculous your argument is. Very well then. This will take time, like untangling a phone cord. Remember phone cords? Showing my age. And by the way, I'm a little over-tired of the false accusation that I have referred to my case as "proven." I have said the testable evidence agrees with me, and that is a fact, not my opinion. So kindly stop misrepresenting me.

Your first sentence conflicts with your last. I submit we have, at best, credible witness to a non-credible event. I believe Socks and Tom. I do not believe the people they are citing. I have no reason to. Every single characteristic you mention that attests to the credibility of Socks and Tom is missing from the people who spoke in tongues and who understood what was spoken. Of those people, we do NOT know their experiences with TWI, we do NOT know how they think, we do NOT know their base reputation as not being prone to lying. For the same reason we can trust Socks and Tom, we cannot yet trust those who made the claims in the first place. And without that information, we do not have nearly enough proof. That it's possible to fake tongues by free vocalization is self evident. I did it. Others admit doing it. Despite your convoluted attempt to discredit the possibility of it, it is an innate human ability. If I need to prove that, I will. I really hope I don't.

So there's no such thing as "free vocalization" as an innate human ability that anyone can do, Christian or non-Christian. Am I reading you correctly? Because that's nonsense. So I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you. You're employing quite a strawman argument here. We will likely lose our remaining reader if I try to dissect it point for point. But I will if you insist. I'd rather you do it on your own.

Still trying to figure out if I can address Pete's post point for point. I've already done a few. This post represents my best effort to handle the rest. Not inflammatory. Just subject to challenge. It is rather impossible to argue against the second phrasing. I mean "anyone could tell this is a language" is quite the assertion. With just as much evidence, I could have said "anyone can tell that this is made up linguistic nonsense." It's an assertion. But "sounded like a language to me" is dead on accurate. It did sound like a language to you. And probably to a lot of people. How else could I fake it so long and no one notice or call me out? *** Listen, Karl is the best witness to testify as to whether he ever believed in the resurrection. "Maybe he did once and forgot" is baseless speculation, and it turns the Bible's insistence on a committed confession and submission to the lordship of Christ into a booby trap that anyone can trip without ever being serious about being a Christian. I think you missed an important aspect of this discussion. Karl faked it. I faked it. The assertion that Karl spoke in tongues without being born again was a response to the statement someone made that he could not speak in tongues before he was born again but could afterward. I exposed that as faulty reasoning on two fronts: one, the person in question, in all likelihood, never TRIED to speak in tongues before he was born again (why would he?) or was never instructed in how to do so. Second, Karl spoke in tongues, presumably surrounded by spirit-filled Christians, some of whom were Advanced Class grads, none of whom were notified by God that he was faking it. Faking it. Not really speaking in tongues. Karl faked it. The idea that you cannot speak in tongues if you're not born again is undercut, in my opinion, by the fact that modern SIT is nothing more than free vocalization masquerading as Biblical SIT. And ANYONE can free vocalize. Karl never spoke in tongues. I never spoke in tongues. The heart of this thread is a challenge to the assertion that ANYONE has. I have yet to be convinced that anyone has done anything other than free vocalization. Yes, this rejects the "firsthand" testimony of Socks and Tom, which I contend (and Socks explicitly said) is really secondhand. You may cling to those anecdotes as proof. I can't stop you. I contend we have not nearly enough information to accept them. We don't even know who the people involved are! But we do know that TWI was just RIDDLED with people who were eager to impress each other with their spiritual acumen. I wouldn't put a faked "lack of knowledge of a language" or "understanding of what was spoken in a tongue" past anyone without knowing more about who they were. After all, on this thread alone, half the people who've responded admit faking tongues, and all but a few have admitted faking interpretation and prophecy, at least sometimes. So the eyewitness testimony of what someone ELSE claimed happened, for real, honest... Interesting. Worthy of consideration. But far, far from proof. By definition, a manifestation is an outward display of what's done within. Not sure what you're getting at, really. Let's see... Then it's not a manifestation. Forgive me, and I regret being this blunt, but I don't see a coherent thought here. You seem to be suggesting that when done right, Speaking in Tongues (which are languages) will produce something that's not a language. Not to invoke a Wierwillism, but I submit you are taking a "difficult" verse and exalting it over all the clear verses on the same subject. Tongues are languages. They are not "groanings that cannot be uttered" or "groans that are not spoken" by definition. If they're not spoken, they're not SPEAKING in tongues. If they are groanings that cannot be uttered, they are not uttered, and thus not spoken, and thus not SPEAKING in tongues. This isn't hard. If this verse is talking about SIT (and I think it probably is), it is clearly talking about OUR inability to put things into words without God's help. Speaking in tongues is supposed to BE that help. But it's tongues. It's still languages. It doesn't suddenly change the clear verses into secret codes and celestial languages. Quite. ;) Already addressed. Just as Karl is the best witness to testify as to whether he was ever really born again, I am the best (indeed, the only irrefutable) witness to testify as to whether I faked SIT. You don't get to come along and say "well just because you doubted what you did, doesn't mean you didn't really SIT." I. Didn't. Really. SIT. Addressed elsewhere on this thread. The short of it: Confession is the only way to "prove" anyone ever faked interpretation and prophecy. I can't even prove anyone never spoke in tongues. I can only point to the fact that the testable evidence, all of it, supports that assertion. But you can respond by rejecting ALL testable evidence, either by denying God's participation or rejecting the expertise of those conducting or interpreting the tests. When you do that, you argue against the evidence, which I suppose is fine, but pulls the rug out from any effort to discuss the issue in rational terms. I addressed the rest of your post. Wow. That wasn't so hard. :blink:

Sure, Ham. And learning a language in the first place is a miracle. And walking. And getting a hankie out in time to block the effect of a sneeze. And reaching around the back of your head to touch your right ear with your left hand. The difference between free vocalization and Biblical SIT is the difference between waking a sleeping man and waking a dead one. One is a perfectly natural thing anyone can do. The other is a profound demonstration of the power of God. I just don't see how doing something anyone can do equals a manifestation of the presence of God in Christ in you. It ain't a miracle if anyone can do it, with or without God.

Two points I can address. First, I am not seeking to cast doubt on the Biblical accounts of SIT. Just the modern. From a Biblical perspective, I have to assume that Peter knew what he heard, and it is consistent with the Bible, especially given the revelation that got Peter to Cornelius' house in the first place, that the veracity of what they did was validated by God Himself. I have no Biblical basis to challenge that, nor did I ever intend to imply such. I do have a Biblical basis to challenge modern SIT. I have stated this basis enough to fill 48 pages. Or 60. Depends on who's counting. If you disagree with my basis, then that's a different discussion best left to the doctrinal section. But the notion that I'm wrong about Biblical SIT has not been explored on this thread in any depth. I suspect, in the end, it will be the required position of those who disagree with me, and I concede that I will have no rational, mutually agreed-upon basis on which to argue that point. The best I'll have is: God would that you all engaged in free vocalization and produced a non-language the same as any non-Christian can do. What's so special about that? On your second issue: You're assuming SIT is a valid spiritual experience and you are failing to consider free vocalization (an innate, human ability with no spiritual implications whatsoever) as a rational alternative. Failing to consider free vocalization leaves you with only two options: SIT is energized by God, or SIT is energized by another (let's presume "evil") spirit. I contend there's no spirit involved in any case, but CERTAINLY no spirit involved in cases where it's not energized by God. My opinion is, of course, as untestable as yours. It only has the benefit of being rational.

Socks, in the dozens of pages that have transpired since you last posted on this thread, you may have missed the part where I apologized to you for being placed in a position where I felt I had to pass judgment on the account you gave. I never intended to do that, you never asked me to accept the account, and I would rather have just let my last word to you be my last word on the subject at all. I found it distasteful to talk skeptically about the story "behind your back." I know my opinion about the story can't surprise you in the least. Nonetheless, I feel an apology is in order, and I offer it.

Sheesh, where to begin? First, casual reading: it appears you would rather believe that we faked faking it than that we actually faked it. That's... I don't even know what to call that. So let me be clear: I do not doubt that I spoke in tongues. I know I did not. I know I faked it and I know how. True, it wasn't until going through the process of dialogue on this thread that I realized that there were fancy words for what I did, but I was rather obviously defining the process of free vocalization before I ever heard the term and saw its application to the subject we are considering. Much of what Pete says is simply impossible to argue because he has, in effect, made everything about SIT, including confessed fakery, untestable. I honestly don't know if I should, or even CAN, answer him point for point. But no, I do not apologize for calling Socks' and Tom's accounts anecdotal evidence insufficient as objective proof of anything. They did not present it as such. They did not ask me to take it as such. And with good reason. That they believe these accounts is a testament to their sincerity. It is no guarantee of the veracity of the stories they tell. I feel for you if that offends you. But you are asking too much of me at this point to rephrase or withdraw it. If you would like to come up with an alternative wording that you think might be acceptable to both of us, I will gladly consider it. Let me add that I have kind of already refined the way I refer to my side of things. In the post right above yours, I wrote: I think that's as humble a way to put it as I can come up with.

I have 25 posts per page, so it's only 48 pages for me.

Yeah, still gotta cheat...

Ok, but you realize we MUST cheat to get this.

So do I. But I don't think that's even in dispute. What's in dispute is whether free vocalization accounts for ALL modern SIT. The testable evidence that we have reviewed certainly appears to validate such a proposition, but it suffers the insurmountable problem of inadequate sample size, not to mention the untestable evidence and the untestable proposition that the God who energizes SIT may not wish to cooperate with a dispassionate validation process. The non-cooperation of God raises the difficult matter of exposing the fact that a sincere Christian can SIT and fake it and not know it, eliminating the sincerity of the speaker as any proof that his claim is ever true. But that doesn't seem to be bothering anyone.

Hard to Kill Kelly Le Brock The Woman in Red

No. Sorry. I thought those were easy lines. This may not be the exact quote, but it's the right sentiment: Get your hands off her, you bitch!

Sorry. Totally forgot about this one. How about this: "Seventeen days? Hey man, I don't wanna rain on your parade, but we're not gonna last seventeen hours! Those things are gonna come in here just like they did before. And they're gonna come in here..." "Hudson!" "...and they're gonna come in here AND THEY'RE GONNA GET US!" "Hudson! This little girl survived longer than that with no weapons and no training. Right?" "Why don't you put her in charge?"

The cases you refer to were alleged, not confirmed. Nice try, though. And while I have no doubt everyone in the room WOULD confirm it if given the opportunity, we have no idea whether they have actually done so. Did you talk to everyone who was in the room with Socks or Tom? Neither did I. So "confirmed by everyone in the room" is, at best, second hand. *** I'll edit this post instead of writing a new one. Chockfull has repeatedly been using the word "xenoglossolalia" and defining it as interchangeable with "xenoglossia." That is a mistake, as I'm sure he'll realize. Xenoglossia, as he understands it (and I don't think he's wrong) technically refers to a claim of actual knowledge of a foreign language. The use of the "lalia" suffix would undercut that definition, so it is surely not what Chockfull means to be saying. In fact, I would propose that xenoglossolalia and glossolalia are interchangeable terms. I still think speaking a foreign language while SITting, in practical terms, would initially be treated the same as a case of xenoglossia. But considering that this is all hypothetical and neither has actually happened (modern setting) , it's kind of moot.

I missed this earlier. It deserves a response. A person reciting the Gettysburg Address in English, with no other knowledge of English, would attract some attention. Someone would be demanding to know how they learned the Gettysburg Address in perfect English. And the investigation into how this person was able to demonstrate knowledge of the Gettysburg Address (by speaking it) would be compelled to explain how it happened. And presumably, for your hypothesis, that person would be able to explain, in his own language, how he came to learn the Gettysburg Address in a language he did not speak. No one in his right mind would conclude, on the basis of the speaker's lack of understanding of what he had spoken, he therefore did not recite the Gettysburg Address, nor that he had done so in English. But the actual speaking of the Gettysburg Address is a demonstration of the knowledge of English. It turns out that the knowledge itself is quite superficial, being merely phonetic rather than truly comprehensive. But impressive nonetheless. Nothing supernatural about it, right? This is exactly the point I'm making. If someone spoke in a foreign language before a linguist looking for foreign linguistic content in a sample of SIT, and the linguist actually detected a foreign language, he would want to know how the person acquired such knowledge. He may later determine that person's knowledge to be completely superficial in the linguistic sense, but he would not deny that it's a language. A person who speaks in tongues and produces a foreign language has demonstrated knowledge of that language. A linguist could determine only the depth of that knowledge and quickly ascertain that the person's knowledge of that language was indeed quite shallow, consisting purely of the sounds emitted and conveying none of the understanding. This would be remarkable, but what happens next is outside the scope of the linguist's expertise. Ask the linguist what just happened, and he'll say "That person just spoke in a foreign language he has never learned. Remarkable." How? Linguist, as a linguist, doesn't care. Refers the case to some other expert: a psychologist who can dig deeper to discover if the person had some exposure to the language he can't remember. A Biblical researcher to determine whether the content of the message lines up with the Bible to determine if this was really energized by God. Shirley MacLaine to determine if he was her king and she his queen in a past life. SOMEthing happened. What was it? And what has happened in every case of confirmed production of SIT in a genuine foreign language? Trick question. There are no such cases. Well, except in Amazing Anecdotes issue 432, right next to the Sasquatch sighting and The Autobiography of Whitley Streiber. I have already answered every single point you made in your last post and will not bore our readers by repeating myself, Chockfull. Your appeal to the ineptitude of the linguists who have taken the time to study this phenomenon is duly noted. But this one... Is "superficial, surface-only" on the list? If I were genuinely speaking in tongues, that is surely what it would be. Maybe not even that much. At least your Gettysburg Address guy knew the phonetics and could repeat it on demand. A SITter wouldn't even be able to do that. So I suppose the ACTFL scale would be worthless to this endeavor. Which is why I'm not clicking on it.

I've actually been offended by none of it. But it seemed to bother other people. Best thing I did yesterday was to just back off and not immediately respond to that last post. Gave me a chance to regain my composure and gather my thoughts. And as you can see, I felt little need to go through most of it. If there's something I haven't addressed that you want me to, feel free to bring it up again.

Sigh. No, Samarin does not call it "knowledge of a language." He calls it "demonstrating knowledge of a language," and speaking a language demonstrates knowledge of it. Seriously, man. The practical difference by adding that one word is huge. Ignoring it or glossing over it changes everything we're discussing. The terms xenoglossia and glossolalia are modern terms used to describe supernatural things. No, the Bible does not come as close to using the word xenoglossia as it comes to using the word glossolalia. But the vocabulary is a shorthand for what we are really discussing, and picking apart the vocabulary is not as useful as studying the actual claims made in both Biblical times and now. Without resorting to modern terminology: The Bible describes people speaking in languages they did not know. Modern SIT does not produce this. The attempts to read into the Bible a sort of secret-code language to assert that they never really claimed to be speaking human languages is undercut by the fact that glossa (the spoken form) in the Bible has the very simple meaning of language. Efforts to redefine it are retroactive attempts to force the Bible to fit a faked practice. Let the Bible speak for itself. If what you're doing doesn't produce what the Bible plainly says it will produce, then scrap your practice and keep your Bible. P.S. I'm not clicking on that link. I've chased enough of your red herrings when dealing with Hockett's list.

All credit for the improved tone of the conversation goes to Chockfull, not to me. As far as I was concerned, I gave what I got and I never apologized for it. When Chockfull turned down the volume, I turned down the volume. He gets all the credit. That said, my rejoinder to the "can we get more petty" post might be considered a cheap shot. I do apologize for it.

By the way, as someone who is not a linguist, I am apt to get my terminology wrong from time to time. I know what I mean, but a real linguist might correct me in my use of certain terms. I'm seeing where my references to "phonetic structure," for example, might have been better stated "phonemic strata." They mean the same thing in my head, but an expert might draw distinctions where I draw none. Just saying.

Why do you hypothesize everything about what Samarin would have done EXCEPT what Samarin tells you he would have done? It wasn't a trap to bait you. It was an effort to clarify your definition of xenoglossia in the context of this discussion. A person speaking in tongues and producing a foreign language would be exhibiting xenoglossia. You don't agree with that. I find your disagreement to be... let me find a word that you used; hang on a minute; ah, here it is... petty. And yes, Samarin might think you're a psychic. Or an alien. Or reincarnated. Or God-energized. He might think any of those things. Not as a linguist. Just as a person. He's completely open to all of it as far as being a scientist is concerned. But we'll never know, because none of the samples he reviewed before this paper or since turned up xenoglossia.

Yes. You are asking me to believe that Samarin would consider the speaking of a known language that the speaker did not otherwise understand to not be a sample of xenoglossia. I think that's absurd. Not to question your grasp of the facts any more than necessary, but 1968 was 44 years ago. I suppose I could sink to your level. Only that you're claiming things about the Bible that aren't true to the Bible, and if you're going to expect me to accept what you present as the Biblical truth to this, you need to get your facts straight. I never said your explanation was plausible. I never judged your explanation at all. And I still don't.

Ok, but postulate is the term YOU used. Just saying. I was using the term because you did. Stop using the word if you don't want me to repeat it. That's neither a postulate nor a hypothesis. It's conjecture. And you accuse me of not being faithful to the scientific method. Then stop doing it.