Raf

The short answer is yes. CES and STFI are the same group at different times. Love your proposed prophecies! Nice analogy. The difficulty of proving or disproving interpretation and prophecy is that I can't even think of an indisputable way to do it even within TWI, where we KNOW there was fakery and, I think, everyone admits faking it at least once (rare is the one who admits faking it in every instance). I think that's why this thread ended up concentrating on SIT even though all three manifestations are brought up in the thread title.

Steven Segal is a do-gooder who proves very difficult to assassinate, but Uma Thurman will not stop trying until she gets the job done.

Nice job, AHAT! Try to have a little more fun meshing the plotlines as if this is really one show. But you've got the right idea. The Winds of War Games

Something else I find interesting: I don't recall if it was this thread or another one that explored the same issues a few years back, but I know someone told a story about faking the interpretation or prophecy and getting busted by the class or fellowship coordinator. Something along the lines of, "you faked that, didn't you?" Mr. Coordinator Man probably looked SOOOOO in tune with God when he recognized the fabrication, and the speaker was duly chastised. Try to see this from my perspective and appreciate the humor: The coordinator could say "you faked that, didn't you?" to ANY speaker at ANY meeting at ANY time and be right. How much of a reinforcement is it to you, then, when you are at a meeting and the coordinator spots a fake, lovingly reproves, then turns to you; you SIT and interpret, and Mr. Coordinator Man doesn't call you out! Hallelujah! God, who told Mr. Coordinator Man that Johnny Jumpup faked it, was silent when you interpreted. Yours must have been genuine! Your heart is in the right place. You're trying to do God's will. You sure as heck don't WANT to fake it. And God is calling out fakers in your presence! So when He does not call you out, that's your verification, your authentication. You didn't fake it because if you did, God would have told Mr. Coordinator Man, who would have told you. Reinforced self-deception? Yes, I recognize that I am DEEP into "you can't prove it" territory. I'm not trying to prove it. I know I faked it. I know others did. I'm coming clean. I invite others to. But there is no logical, Biblical way to suggest that everyone's in the same boat, so I won't push it beyond expressing my thought on the matter.

Prophecy, unlike SIT, really and truly is impossible to prove (or disprove). We rely here entirely on the integrity of those bringing forth the messages. I can record SIT, play it back, and establish to a reasonable degree of confidence that the words spoken are not a language. But I can't play back a prophecy and establish that it was really the speaker extemporaneously bringing forth a comforting message rather than God inspiring the same message. "Prove it," with prophecy, really makes no sense. I can't disprove it any more than you can prove it. I can tell you I made it all up and that it wasn't God working in me. I had/have a pretty decent knowledge of the Bible and heard enough samples of prophecy to fake it with the best of them (psst: YOU were the best of them). Interpretation is a different ball of wax. It should go without saying that IF all SIT is phony, then all interpretation is phony by definition. That wouldn't stop God from working in someone's heart to bring forth a prophecy when it's time to interpret, so again, I can't prove the content of interpretation is uninspired. In my opinion, it's a safe bet that the message you brought forth in a tongue and the message you brought forth in interpreting that tongue were utterly unrelated, but that's my opinion. It's rather like trying to describe a hotel's penthouse when I haven't even gotten out of the lobby yet. Even if I'm right, you have no reason to believe me. Some things I find interesting: I brought up the CES/TWI disagreement over interpretation to illustrate my point about how I can't be the only one who faked it. In reality, the difference doesn't prove anything because both sides have an explanation that acknowledges divine inspiration in the process. According to CES: Believers SIT and then interpret, but in TWI one of two things happened. The believers either prophesied when they should have been interpreting, or their minds interfered and they changed the wording of the interpretation to fit what they thought it should sound like. For example, if the tongue was "Lord God, you are ever faithful and true," the "polluted" interpretation would be "I, the Lord your God, am faithful and always true." According to TWI: CES believers are either full of it and making it up, or they're altering the interpretation in reverse of how CES claims. Those are the "spiritual" possibilities that can explain how a CES believer can speak in tongues and interpret and always have the message come out one way, while that same believer operating the same manifestation in TWI several years earlier would produce a radically different type of interpretation. Those are the "spiritual" possibilities. The rational explanation is that both sides are making it up as they go along and it should be no suprise whatsoever that the interpretation matches the theology. Wouldn't it have been great, during these prophecies, for the message to have been something along the lines of: "My little children, be warned, you're in a cult. These people are in it for the money and the power. Think for yourselves. Run! Run far away!" Anyone ever have THAT happen? Would have edified the hell out of me.

Major League Wesley Snipes US Marshals

Actually, John, in this context is a gerund, not a participle. A gerund is a form of a verb altered for use as a noun in a sentence. "Running is my favorite sport." Running is not a noun, but it is the subject of that sentence. All subjects are nouns or pronouns. So running is a noun in that sentence; it is a gerund. Participles are verbs altered to be used as adjectives. We distinguish between running water and standing water. Running and standing are verbs used as adjectives. They are participles. There is no problem using believing as a gerund, which Wierwille did. The problem was differentiating Biblically between faith and believing. We're expected to believe, for no Biblical reason, that faith and believing are different things. In Greek, the silliness is more obvious: there is no appreciable difference between pistis and pistis. Wierwille's distinctions were arbitrary, capricious and frankly a little silly.

That's the Samarin link, chockfull

I missed this particular line earlier: the study you suggest is exactly the study Samarin produced. Naturally, his sample size was wayyyyy under 100 percent, and I have no reason to believe he included anyone from TWI in his sample. But it was more than a handful of people from more than just the USA. But for what it's worth, there it is. I have seen nothing to discredit Samarin's analysis. If anyone finds something, let me know.

I thought a vocabulary issue might be the stumbling block here. My fault for casting this whole discussion in terms of "lying" and "faking." Those words undermine a person's integrity, and the defensive response is both natural and predictable. In a conversation like this, it's also unavoidable (well, not entirely unavoidable: I could have just not posted anything). If referring to free vocalization and the subconscious injecting itself into a process energized by genuine love and integrity helps people to consider that this MIGHT be what they did, then I would naturally prefer the less objectionable terms. But make no mistake about my position: in terms of what we did and the results of what we produced, I am NOT drawing a distinction. I just think one way of expressing it is more palatable and less insulting than the other. Good of you to stick with the dialogue, Old Skool. Till we meet next...

Will cross that bridge when we come to it. Since I cheated, I'll wait a bit longer before posting the answer to the last one.

I'm going to nudge you a little bit by suggesting, politely (I hope) that this sentence is self-contradictory. Terms: glossalalia in Samarin is distinguished from the actual production of a language and appears to fit the description of free vocalization we see in Poythress. (Those two original links have come in quite handy, no?) If you KNOW you didn't fake it, you can't admit what you did COULD be glossalalia. You would have to not know you didn't fake it. At this point, I don't want to talk you out of what you did. My opinion (worth the paper it's printed on, and it's not printed on paper) is that you don't know you didn't fake it. You know your heart was pure and in a Godly place. You know you had no intention to deceive anyone, not yourself, not God, not your fellow believers. You know you love God and want to do His will. But this thread has troubled you and you don't know what to conclude. You don't like being called a liar (who would?), but your sense of certainty in the legitimacy of what you have been doing is shaken, if only a little. Ultimately, you view this as trusting man (in the form of the arguments I have presented) vs. trusting God. And you choose to trust God. Presumptuous of me to speak for you, but that's the only way I can make sense of your comment. Am I off the mark?

Correct. If I'm not mistaken, T-speech and religious free vocalization would be synonymous to Poythress.

I respect that people don't agree with me. I do. http://philosophy-religion.info/handouts/pdfs/Samarin-Pages_48-75.pdf The link starts on p. 49. Starting at the bottom of Pg 55 and going into pg 56, this addresses the number of known languages and the ability of linguists to discern them. Pg. 65 specifically addresses how someone "unknowingly faking it" (your words, I think: religious free vocalization is what Poythress would call it: chockfull, please check me on that) would be able to produce something with linguistic characteristics that distinguish the sounds produced from mere gibberish (by Samarin's definition). I don't mind disagreeing. But if we're going to look into arguments for why I'm wrong, I'm going to reserve the right to respond.

My position cannot be proved. It can be disproved. I can't believe we're back at this point of the "argument," considering that it has been effectively addressed numerous times.

You got that backwards. I can't disprove SIT in modern times is real because not everyone who practices it will agree to subject their practice to independent, unbiased observation and investigation. YOU can prove SIT is real by producing a language. But so far everyone who's tried that in a controlled, observable setting has failed. The existing evidence is on my side, but the limitation is that those who hold to SIT as real will accept nothing less than a 100 percent sample size. And even then, there's an out: God won't necessarily participate in the experiment (I Corinthians 13:1?) So I could theoretically demonstrate that everyone on Earth who practices SIT is faking it and still persuade no one. Impasse. By the way, you mentioned that someone unknowingly faking it would produce nothing but gibberish. This has been addressed on this thread and is a false assertion: someone unknowingly faking it would be highly motivated in his heart to produce a real language and will thus subconsciously inject that wish on the sounds he produces. In fact, this is what Samarin believes comprises the entirety of the samples he studied.

I respect your position, but I'll remind you that the admonition of "that would take proof" is what got this thread heated in the first place. Chockfull and I have expressed this disagreement in terms of burden of proof and the greater claim. I believe the person who claims to be speaking in tongues is making the greater claim and has the burden to prove its legitimacy. Chockfull believes the doubter is making the greater claim and has the burden to prove its illegitimacy. And I will agree: we are at an impasse.

http://charlesdailey.net/TonguesHolton.html Let me know if that link addresses your questions. And again, I'm perfectly fine with you disagreeing with me.

A crucial observation! Recall that Vern Poythress is writing about the theological implications of this stuff, not the legitimacy. He rather adamantly dodges the legitimacy question, which is his right (and which prompted me to unfairly label him laughably biased until I realized what he was really doing). I think we can agree that if something CAN be done without God (free vocalization producing some characteristics of language), the fact that the same thing is done in a religious or worship setting does not prove God's involvement. Samarin, who is not writing for a religious publication or with a view toward making sense of theology, is rather more forceful in his observations on legitimacy. He never says anything is being faked, because that's not his role. But he says unapologetically that regardless of whatever characteristics of language are being produced, it's ultimately not a language. I recognize we're rehashing, so I'll stop there.

Ok, I should not be in a position to try to articulate Steve's view because I'm not even sure HE entirely understands it, so it's a bit unfair to critique it. He's also using the same terms to mean different things than I do, which further complicates things. So I don't entirely know what to make of it. I read Steve's posts the way Geisha does (meaning becomes infused by the heart of the one doing the praying). I'm being much more simple: I believe if it's not a language, it's not SIT, end of story. The verse itself equates tongues of men and angels (a hyperbole, in my opinion) with sounding brass and tinkling cymbal. If I'm reading Paul correctly, he's saying that a genuine operation of SIT is meaningless without the proper heart behind it. He's not saying it will suddenly become meaningless: he's saying it will benefit no one but the speaker. In other words, I don't think Paul is differentiating between the sounds produced in one circumstance versus the other: it should be languages in both cases. Paul is differentiating between the possible effects: benefit or no benefit. Simply put: Paul's comment in this verse is unrelated to this thread, in my opinion. Steve appears to disagree. I'll leave it to him to speak for himself. Fair enough.

I can't. But linguists who have tried to study this "phenomenon" (for lack of a better word) seem pretty fairly convinced that the sounds produced are not languages. For this, I have no choice but to refer you back to the studies we referenced on this thread and in the "Reading Room" we set up in Doctrinal. A full answer to your post is not really possible in such a short space. I don't mean to dodge, but if you really want me to re-post, that's going to require me to do the digging through links we've already posted, and I'm not in a position to do that right now.

It is my opinion, and others may differ, that all SIT should produce an actual language. There is no promise that there will be people present who understand the language, but it should always be a language. The surprise in Acts is not that they spoke actual languages; the surprise in Acts is that the actual languages were understood by those present. "Tongues" in the Bible are languages. They are not mere sounds. What they were speaking in Corinth were languages, not meaningless sounds. I believe that we err when we retroactively force Corinthians to alter the clear meaning of the word "tongues." I disagree with Steve on his interpretation of "sounding brass and tinkling cymbals" because I believe it is inconsistent with the rest of the verse. But that's a doctrinal issue. I believe the interpretation that the sounds may or may not have earthly meaning is an ad hoc apologetic to explain why SIT doesn't produce a human language. There is a more logical explanation for why SIT does not produce a known language: it's not real, Biblical SIT.

I wasn't trying to read into anything. I was simply stating as a counterpoint that you need not be an atheist to reach the conclusion that what we did was/is not what they did in Acts and the early church. I'm not disputing your observation. It has not escaped my observation that an atheist would (naturally) come to the same conclusion. The position rises or falls on its merits, not on the beliefs of the people espousing it. "Someone praying to God to SIT, receiving no answer, and making up free vocalization to appease themselves" is also consistent with the position of one who believes that which is being prayed for is "not available," to borrow a term from Wierwille. It is consistent with the opinion of one who believes the "gift" "died with the apostles." It is consistent with one who believes simply that what is being practiced is not what is described in the Bible, and therefore a further search for Biblical truth is warranted. Etc.

Correct. The name of the first show/movie has to be at least two words. The name of the second show/movie has to be at least two words. The last word of the first show should be the same as the first word of the second (minus articles like "A" or "The"). I'm calling that the linking word (for reasons I hope are obvious).

On the contrary, I think we have addressed this, and it is the heart of this entire thread. We've addressed that there's no way for me to prove my position. I hold it, you [chockfull, Steve and others] dispute it, and we've agreed to respectfully disagree. To me, it's more logically reasonable that what we all experienced was mere free vocalization that we attributed to God. Not that what we manifested was "another spirit." I have to agree with you there. The Biblical logic is clear: if you ask God for a fish, He's not going to give you a scorpion. I'm with you on that. But if you ask God for a fish, and upon not receiving a fish, you make yourself a bowl of chili, that's neither God nor another spirit. It's just you. I contend that if what we experienced is what is described in the Bible, then the results of what we experienced should be the results described by the Bible. I see no reason to believe that has taken place. We respectfully disagree, and I'm good with that. You don't need to be atheist to admit you faked it. You just need to be honest (if you faked it: If you didn't this is not addressed to you).