Raf

Ocean's Eleven

I had another one of those moments where I drafted a lengthy exposition and realized just before posting that I wasn't saying anything new. I believe promoting free vocalization and pretending it was genuine, Biblical SIT was indeed in TWI's best interest. They used it to lord their superiority over us. It wasn't the only thing. Just another weapon in their arsenal. To this day, I would imagine there are some unwilling to leave TWI because TWI taught them "the Word" and proved it in a way no one else could by leading them into SIT. How hard is it to just leave that? I know, THAT doesn't apply to everyone. And, of course, it assumes I'm correct. I think the people at the top have always known it's a crock.

Mostly guessing: Mom and Dad Save the World According to Garp

I have reservations about Goodman on a couple of fronts, not having examined her work in the same detail as we've been privileged to review Samarin and Poythress. It seems to me that she draws linguistic conclusions in a psychological study. I'm not sure of her qualifications to do so. Not saying she's wrong: in fact, I think she's right. But I can't rely on her because I cannot retrace her steps with the limited information I have. There are psychological conclusions she draws that I think give a clear indication that she did not observe SIT in the kinds of settings with which we are all familiar. She talks of altered mental states and "trances" as though they are the norm or even necessary to the tongues speaker. We know otherwise, firsthand. Like my observations on Sherrill, these observations are based on a severely limited exposure to Goodman's work. My questions and doubts are enough to limit my reliance on her findings, as much as I agree with them on the details relevant to this thread.

Back to a computer and an ability to review Chockfull's post in a little more depth: We agree that this is a doctrinal problem. Your question has two "if" clauses, one of which we can address. IF you can do everything Paul and the Bible instructs regarding SIT... What if you can't? That knocks down the premise of your question, invalidating the conclusion. So if I'm right that all modern SIT is unbiblical (that is, it's not producing the same result and therefore cannot be the same thing) it is plausible to suggest we've all been mistaken on the pivotal question of "what is available?" I know that's a Wierwillian question, but it's a good one that stands up to reason. What if SIT today is not available and we've all been erroneously led to believe that it is? There is a widespread, mainstream interpretation known as cessationist theory that holds exactly that position. If that position is correct, it explains why I am right (presuming I am, which you obviously don't). A deeper question. I believe you can still trust scripture while questioning the validity of your interpretation of scripture. Again, cessationist theory may be your Biblical answer. I keep bringing that up, so let me be clear: I am not advocating cessationism. I am merely pointing out that it is out there as a plausible Biblical view that we've all dismissed as a matter of course. Are you at least open to the possibility that it may be the Biblically correct view? Again, a doctrinal question, as you correctly label it. Well, the key difference is that Peter and the others spoke real languages and modern SITters are not (if I'm right). So that's a pretty big distinction to overlook. I can only answer half of it: you're not producing saltwater. You're producing sweet water. Where do you find salt? Is there salt to find? I do not know. But my inability to answer that question does not make your sweet water salty. (Again, this response presumes I'm right, which you do not). Again, deep questions that have no direct bearing on the question we're considering. The fact (assuming it's a fact) that I'm wrong about my interpretation of one section or subject of scripture need not call into question my understanding or acceptance of other sections of scripture. Many people here used to believe Jesus is God. Just about all of us turned away from that belief. Some of us have gone back to that belief. If you can vacillate on the person of Jesus Christ, the central question of Christianity, and not lose faith in the Bible as a whole, why is it so much more difficult to vacillate on the question of SIT without casting the entirety of scripture into doubt? Previously addressed: I am unsure of the basis of your claim. I'll look for it, but I don't think Samarin's work says what you say it says. I could be wrong, but the last time I tried to check that claim, it led me to Sherrill and not Samarin. And my jury is out on Sherrill (to put it politely and give him benefit of consideration). This article, while one-sided in my view, does show that the finding of SIT not producing a language is not limited to Samarin. I'm not asking you to accept the findings of this article as a whole. I'm presenting it strictly for the purpose of showing Samarin is far from alone: http://charlesdailey.net/TonguesHolton.html In contrast, I have yet to see a named linguist identify a language produced by SIT. Still waiting for that. On your post addressed to Geisha, I agree with you that Moore's analysis of interpretation is flawed because it relies on a definition of interpretation that is inconsistent with our understanding of how that manifestation operates. At best, he can say that he has discredited the most commonly held view of interpretation (our view is not the most commonly held: we are vastly outnumbered in that regard). But the people who hold that view and who practice interpretation that way are most certainly sincere and hungry to do the things of God to the best of their ability and will all the fervor of their faith. As Wierwille would put it (correctly), their sincerity is no guarantee for truth. Clearly, if five people were tested and all five gave different interpretations, at least four were lying (or, more charitably, incorrect. Or even more charitably, prophesying). As noted earlier on this thread, there is no conceivable way to test prophecy or interpretation in itself. The best we can say is that if SIT is fake, so is interpretation. But that doesn't prevent interpretation from being prophecy in disguise. The premise is quite untestable. Thanks for permitting me such a lengthy response.

Chockfull asks a series of probing questions about the doctrinal implications of all modern SIT being false. Does it mean the Bible is not reliable? Does it mean God is a respecter of persons? I submit that those questions, valid though they may be, have no bearing on the validity of modern SIT. Modern SIT is valid or invalid strictly on its merits. Does it produce what the Bible describes? If not, you have just cause to question whether what you are doing is Biblical. What does the Bible describe? That is a fair and necessary question to answer that has a direct bearing on our ability to determine whether modern SIT is even testable, much less verifiable or disprovable. But the questions Chockfull raises have no bearing. They're important for different reasons, but no matter what their answers are, they will not make modern SIT any more false or true.

Chockfull, you keep mentioning that Samarin uses linguists who don't draw the same conclusion he does. On what are you basing that statement? The last time we tried to track that down, it led us to Sherrill. I do not see in Samarin the ambiguity you are suggesting among his peers. Seems the only linguists I've read about who disagree with Samarin are those whose talents were employed by Sherrill. Conveniently, we do not have the luxury of their names or their firsthand observation. They come to us anonymous and second hand from an evangelical SIT promoter. That doesn't make it wrong, but it raises my suspicion.

Rapture David Duchovny Evolution

Did you deliberately mean to speak in tongues because it was in the Bible? Why doubt that you succeeded? Were you just goofing around making up a phony language? It was free vocalization. Personally, I don't think there's a difference. But I'm not going to make that connection for you. Between you and God.

And.... checking in on our poll, the "I lied about its" are even with the "It's real and I've done its." I wonder if anyone, after going through this thread, would change their vote.

I've only been glancing at Chockfull's ongoing dispute with geisha on the various threads, so forgive me if this has been covered. Chockfull, I think it might be possible that you might maybe be giving the concept of hyperbole a bit of short shrift in explaining the statement "I would that you all spoke in tongues." (Did I couch that enough?) I think Paul is very clearly expressing reproof over the abuse of tongues in this congregation. When he says "I would that you all spoke in tongues," he could be expressing a literal desire without expressing a realistic possibility. "I would that you all spoke in tongues, won the lottery and married the hottie next door." It doesn't mean everyone can or will. And it certainly doesn't mean that in the context of a gathering of the church (but you knew that). It means he wishes everyone could. Wierwille made (what I think was) the mistake of suggesting that "I" was a reference to God, not Paul. If it's God saying He wants us all to speak in tongues, then the mandate is pretty clear. But if it's Paul, then it's not a mandate. It's wishful thinking. Just a thought. I'm not sure it holds water. It strikes me that you had a group of people where everyone wanted to stand out as special, and Paul seems to be discouraging this. I don't think he's forbidding tongues, obviously. The last verse in ch. 14 seems pretty clear on that point. But I don't think "I would that you all spoke in tongues" is a doctrinal statement that compels the interpretation that all believers can. Other verses might make that point, but I'm not sure this one does. Anyway, I offer the preceding as a thought, not a doctrine and not even a formed belief on my part.

I found a copy of Malony and Lovekin's book at my local library. Didn't check it out. No Samarin and no Sherrill, unfortunately. Samarin has a book called "Tongues of Men and Angels" that I'd love to get my hands on. Sherrill has a book called "They Speak with Other Tongues" that I am not willing to spend a red cent on. But I would have checked either out.

I think it's Earth and not World, and I think you're correct.

I want my four minutes back.

Ace Ventura: Pet Detective

I have a running gag on Facebook. Every time someone famous dies, I marvel that Abe Vigoda is still alive.

And the last word of the first movie is the first word of the second? Because I'm stumped... unless I've got the order of the movies reversed. Yes, that's it. I've got the order of the movies reversed!

I don't think either thread starter would mind or consider it a derail, but your call.

There are two threads waiting for you. Three, if you count the reading room.

You are correct! Welcome to the game.

:) Abe Vigoda.

Interesting analogy, Chockfull. I'll stew on it. In the meantime, let me try a sillier analogy. Pretend you have no prior experience with the very common adjectives and nouns I'm about to use. Just for the sake of argument. *** Suppose the Apostle Paul took a white, granular substance and put it in a cup of water. He drank it and declared it to be salty. 2,000 years later, a bunch of people decide to reproduce Paul's experiment. They take a white, granular substance and put it in a glass of water and declare it to be salty. Everyone who tries to reproduce Paul's experiment succeeds, and declare the result to be salty. Along comes the researcher. He has you reproduce the experiment. You do it. You drink the water. You declare it to be salty. The researcher then tests the water. He determines that it does not conduct electricity, as salt water would. Its ionic content is not the same as saltwater. It bears a superficial resemblance to saltwater. It's clearly water. It's obviously not poisonous. The researcher saw you put the white, granular substance in there. But every single time the researcher subjects the experiment to a test, no matter who is performing the experiment, it always, without fail, comes out without the known qualities of saltwater, even though the subject is declaring it to be salty and identical to what the Apostle Paul produced. Why would that happen? Well, maybe Paul used a cup while we used a glass. But the result of the experiment should be the same, shouldn't it? So we try a different approach: we redefine the word "salty" to include the taste but no other qualities of saltwater. After all, you're doing what Paul did, so the result must be the same. If you put a white, granular substance in a cup of water, just like Paul did, then the result of your actions MUST be the same as Paul's: salty water. It's so because Paul said it was so. After a while, one of the practitioners realizes something's not right and becomes a skeptic. He confesses: I used sugar. He can't find evidence of anyone reproducing the experiment and producing actual saltwater. All the samples are consistent with sugary water. All of them. A few other people also come forward and admit to using sugar. Just as many insist that it's saltwater, but they are reluctant to submit their drink for testing. We just have to take their word for it. Well, your skeptic can't go back in time and re-drink the water everyone else drank to prove it's ALL sugary. But every single time the experiment is done in a controlled setting, the end product is consistent with sugary water that is inconsistent with saltwater. What are we to make of this? Well, your skeptic might look at his own practice as well as those who have agreed to be tested and determined, to whatever degree of certainty that he can, that the white, granular substance Paul used was salt, and the white granular substance we've all been using today is actually sugar! This does not call into doubt anything Paul experienced or reported. It doesn't deny that the people who are seeking to reproduce Paul's experiment are actually doing something, not just drinking plain water. It only means that the people who are doing it today are not doing the same thing Paul did. This alternative explanation, we're using sugar where Paul used salt, explains every objectively observed case. That it doesn't explain every unobserved case is due to the impossibility of observing every case in the first place. Is it possible someone is getting it right? Sure it is. But the more we observe the experiment and test it, the less reasonable that possibility becomes. You could prove the skeptic wrong by producing saltwater. But every time you try it, it doesn't work. It's always sweet. *** I'm not denying that those who SIT are sincere. I'm not here suggesting that Paul was wrong or that Acts is wrong. I'm merely stating, plainly as I can, that we are not producing the same thing they described, and therefore we are not doing the same thing they did. Now, my silly analogy falls apart because salt and sugar are so abundant in our culture. But you get the idea. At some point, you need to stop re-defining salt to incorporate sugar into the definition and just recognize that you're not doing the same thing Paul did. Tongues MEANS languages. When you SIT, you should be producing a language. I don't know that you're not, but isn't it something that every single time SIT is tested, it's not a language? Maybe you're the exception. But the more I look at the objective research, the less convinced I am that anyone is doing what the Bible describes.

Ok, how's aboot: "You can't disprove it, therefore you have not convinced me that it isn't so."

One thing I appreciate about Chockfull is that you're keeping me honest and looking for holes in my logic. Let me say a few things to clarify matters: If I'm wrong about SIT in the Bible being human languages, then my hypothesis fails in a way that cannot be tested or proved. Those who disagree with me are entitled to that position. If I'm wrong on "code" as described by Poythress and those following his lead, then my hypothesis fails in a way that cannot be tested or proved. Those who disagree with me are entitled to that position. If I'm wrong on "tongues of angels" as a viable and widespread alternative, then my hypothesis fails in a way that cannot be tested or proved. Those who disagree with me are entitled to that position. If people are producing languages on a regular basis, but not when objective analysts attempt to bear it out because God doesn't want this experience to be tested, then my hypothesis fails in a way that cannot be proved. Those who disagree with me are entitled to that position. If Sherrill is telling the truth, despite my misgivings, then my hypothesis fails in a way that HAS been tested and proved. I believe the burden here is on validating Sherrill, but I don't know how possible or likely that is given the context of this thread. I'll look for his book in a public library, but if someone else gets to it first, please share what you learn. It occurs to me that every refutation of my hypothesis except the last one requires a "you can't disprove it, therefore it's so" conclusion. I am not satisfied with that. I liken it to the invisible, non-corporeal, non-thermal fire-breathing dragon in the garage. YOU present a hypothesis that can't be tested (modern SIT is real, there's a dragon in my garage) and when I deny it, my inability to disprove it is taken as evidence that your premise is so. I object. I can't prove my hypothesis (ie, disprove yours) because you won't let me. Or God won't let me. We're stuck there. Of course, that last refutation, if verified by objective, independent observers, would be quite satisfactory. But there we are expected to believe that an objective, unbiased linguist did not recognize the language of a glossolalia sample but was somehow able to catch the emotional content of a message and declare it to be "a hymn of love" (!!!!!!!!) that was "beautiful." You don't mind if I, at least in theory, question that linguist's objectivity, do you?

I'm going to assume I'm right, unless AHAT comes back and tells me otherwise... Arthur Dent is kidnapped by alien Ford Prefect, who has mistaken him for the starship captain he plays on TV and wants him to do battle with a real alien menace.