Raf

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.

Re: your rejection of free vocalization. That's very nice. It establishes that we cannot gave an honest conversation because you will hurl evidence out the window if it doesn't suit your need.

Sure. Since LeBaron had the kindness to write it down, he gave Samarin a claim and a language to test it again. Samarin rang the bulls hit alarm. Read the flipping report.

More distortions of what I did say. I don't know how you can look in a mirror. For real. Fortunately, folks can see for themselves how you claim I said something, we ask for proof, and you prove I said half of it over here and a third of it over there and a shred of it over here and presto! Five crucified. In quoting James, you seem to have left out Samarin's conclusion after comparing the alleged xenoglossia to language. Wonder why you would do that.

Hey, I want credit for getting angry. I didn't see anyone responding in kind.

See? Again. No, they were NOT understood in the medium's cases. Crap, you're not even reading this stuff, are you? This is what I'm talking about. You're not reading the studies. You're trolling through them looking for gaps that you can cast doubt on and claim that the truth about SIT would be understood if we only had the information to fill in those gaps. You have every right to do that, but read the bleeping report before you declare a gap where solid ground exists.

IF, by "over 100 times," you mean "not a single time. That's a lie." Then yes, yes, that's exactly what I did.

Well, you could dispute my premise, ww. If Biblical SIT is not what I think it is, every conclusion I draw can be questioned. Ok, I'll stop messing with you guys. I am Word Wolf. Just kidding.

Stop using quotes to paraphrase what I said. In the space of a few short posts, you have turned what I DID say into something I did not, and you have applied it to a subject about which I was not speaking. So you are either being dishonest about what I said or incompetent about reading and applying it. I have found this to be consistent with your approach to just about every article, study and to a lesser extent, every post we have shared. It is impossible and unproductive for me to have to constantly correct your failure to comprehend what's written by LAYPEOPLE, to say nothing of experts in linguistics. I've tried to patiently steer you right, but my patience is exhausted. For the record, what I said was you have now reached the point of denying what is factually true and undisputed. Clearly, I am referring to something you did today. To apply this statement, which somehow became, in quotes no less, "proven and incontrovertible fact," to my assertion that modern SIT does not produce human language, is either dishonest or incompetent. Either way, I'm tired of dealing with it. The line refers to the patently and self-evidently ridiculous assertion that free vocalization is not an innate human ability that anyone, Christian or not, can do. You might as well deny the sky is blue. You're not arguing to get to the truth. You're not even arguing to win. You're arguing to outlast me. Well, congratulations. You have.