Raf

Jack Warden The Presidio Meg Ryan

Ok, now that I'm back on a computer instead of on my phone, I can look at this a little more systematically. Convenient is an interesting word choice. I find it convenient that where the Bible is clear on the meaning of SIT as producing an actual language, in the modern practice (where we have the luxury of a field of study called linguistics that has the capacity to recognize actual languages) suddenly the offered definition of SIT not only includes more than actual languages, but actually all but excludes actual languages. Tongues speakers have taken something that, as described in the Bible, is quite testable, and redefined it for the sole purpose of making it as untestable as possible. How's THAT for "convenient"? I'm not offering a Biblical refutation. That would be a doctrinal debate. I am offering a practical refutation. Tongues speakers, when subjecting their experience to objective examination, are not producing languages. (I'm still putting Sherrill to the side here: I am skeptical of his findings and suspect he's full of it, but still do not know enough to dismiss the findings outright). As for the scientific analysis, if you have seen nothing to debunk the modern day practice of SIT, I submit you are not looking very hard. It would be more fair to say you cannot produce scientific evidence to support it. (I believe the brain wave studies are inconclusive for reasons I have described: they don't compare SIT to admitted fakery, so they can't rule fakery out as an explanation). Again, Sherrill may be key here, but I believe my critique of his presentation thus far has been quite fair. Still not dismissing him: he's the best you've got in terms of scientific analysis. You may find him persuasive where I don't, and I'm happy to disagree there. I have no reason to accept this statement. I have no basis to believe you ever tried to SIT before becoming born again, and every reason to believe that if you had tried to free vocalize, you could have. Further, you made a later statement that you struggled with SIT even (presumably) after being saved. Seems to me you owe your ability to SIT more to a bottle of beer than you do to your salvation, but I might be reading into that. ;) Not funny? Ok, let me put it this way: if you never tried to speak in tongues before getting saved, you have no basis to conclude that you could not. Therefore, I have doubt as to the basis of your contrast: "I couldn't speak in tongues before, but I could after I was saved." Why should I believe that? I couldn't drive a car before I turned 24, but after I turned 24 I could. True story. It's not because I was incapable of driving before that. I was just a New Yorker. I didn't need a car. When I needed a car, I learned to drive. Turning 24 had nothing to do with it. Free vocalization is something anyone can do. You could have done it before you got saved, and if I'm right, you excelled at it after you got saved. I have no reason to believe that you, I, or anyone else on this thread or in TWI did it as a matter of a prideful heart or mindset. Rather, I believe it was most often done in the utmost sincerity, hunger and thirst for righteousness. My initial choice of words is unfortunate and puts you and others on the defensive. I apologize for that. If I had at my disposal a more diplomatic terminology, as I now do, I would have taken the more diplomatic course. My belief is that SIT is free vocalization. They work the same way. They produce the same thing. The only thing different about them appears to be the setting in which the practices are undertaken. You are free to disagree with me. I won't lose sleep over that.

I'm reading this now. No idea what it concludes. I've read maybe three sentences and can already see that it's worth posting. For all I know, it shoots me down. http://greatcommandmentseminar.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/mark-cartledge-ch-10-7-4-10-1.pdf

Another attempt to change "speaking in tongues" to "speaking in code," using Poythress as a backdrop. http://www.oswaldsobrino.com/2008/12/another-dart-bites-dust.html Reminder: I consider all such mental gymnastics to be a post-hoc apologetic effort designed to explain why modern SIT does not produce human languages, which a clear reading of the Bible tells you it will produce. Obviously, I can't put it past God to pull this stunt, but it's not what the Bible describes.

Ok, so you figured out how to free vocalize while drunk. ? I asked how you knew you couldn't speak on tongues BEFORE being born again. (PS: You could. You just never tried. Because why would you. But if I gave you the same instruction, minus the pressure and spiritual implications, not only would you have done it, but the results would have been indistinguishable from what you're doing now. The preceding is my opinion). It should be a given that by the time we get to session 12, you could SIT. I mean, from a Biblical standpoint, nothing was stopping you. Well, maybe that little voice inside your head that told you it was just you... Oh, wait, that was the devil trying to talk you out of it.

I understand. Take as much time as you need. Did you ever try to SIT before you were born again? Curious to know your basis for concluding you couldn't. Karl Kahler spoke in tongues while never having believed in the resurrection. Last I checked, you can't be born again without that belief. Google Poythress and free vocalization for the source of the term as used on this thread.

One thing that all scientists do is publish their raw data so that others who are investigating the same phenomenon can review the data and determine whether the conclusions drawn are valid. I don't know that we have that in any of the studies we've considered. I would be surprised if Samarin did not do this. I would be astonished if Sherrill (who is not a scientist) did. But that's my bias showing. Samarin's work is peer-reviewed. Sherrill's is not: it's presented in guideposts and in his own book, which has the same value for this discussion as anything written by Wierwille, Hagin or Jimmy Swaggart. If anyone, as a result of this conversation, decides to order Sherrill's book, I would be deeply interested in whether he provides further documentation of his effort at linguistic analysis of glossolalia. I'm not spending a dime on it. http://www.amazon.com/They-Speak-Other-Tongues-Sherrill/dp/0800793595/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350335257&sr=8-1&keywords=john+sherrill

I posted this in the About the Way thread on SIT earlier today. Needless to say, I don't put a lot of stock in it, but it would be dishonest not to include it. Of particular importance to our conversation is the section that deals with John Sherrill (hit Control F, look for Sherrill, and go to the third occurrence of the word). http://kenady.150m.com/chapel/bhs/glossolalia.pdf

Robin Wright Forrest Gump Sally Field

Re-quoting: Were these experts unaware of how far off they were in the number of languages and dialects? Or did we discover another 3,000 to 4,000 between 1964 (the time of this experiment) and 1972 (the time of Samarin's publication)? Yeah, but were they languages? Name the international language specialists. Who were these people? What were their findings (not their findings as reported by the good minister: their actual, reported findings. ... chirp... chirp... chirp... Awesome! Name them. Let's have a chat with them. ... chirp... chirp... chirp...

I think this article sums up Kildahl. http://www.bible411.com/glossolalia/chapter4.htm But it's a pretty judgmental article. Not one I would use overall to buttress my argument.

There are a few names that keep popping up. His is one of them. Malony and Lovekin are others. The psychological angle doesn't interest me as much as the sociological does.

I agree with Moore's conclusion that a plain reading of Acts and Corinthians compels us to believe that the tongues spoken of in Acts and Corinthians are human languages. I accept that this position is not universally held.

I don't think he's constructing a straw man so much as he's making a concerted effort at looking at this from all angles and deciding which one is correct. Keep reading. I don't agree with everything he says either (for example, I do not believe SIT opens you up to a Satanic influence).

Wow! I have been debunked! Or... Who were the linguists? What are their names and qualifications? How were they chosen? I mean, yes, they gathered at a "University of Columbia," but were they students or professors? Is that the same thing as Columbia University? Has anyone heard of the University of Columbia? Details, please, if you have them. Did Sherrill seek these linguists out at the college or did he stumble across one or two at church? Have they reviewed and affirmed Sherrill's report? This review of Sherrill's work tells us too little about the linguists to allow for much confidence in their professionalism. I have no reason to doubt them, true. Ok, not true. I have reason to doubt them. When anonymous scientists are cited by a religious writer who then uses their findings to prove a theological point, I think the reader is entitled to question the validity of the source. It's a question, not a conclusion. I'm not dismissing them. I just want more data. Not to mention: the expertise of a linguist is language. I have reservations about any linguist who claims to have "caught the emotional content" of a message and who subsequently labels such a thing "beautiful." I submit "beautiful emotional content" is not an unbiased, linguistic, analytic conclusion. And how does the writer here make the leap from "none of the tongues were recognized as a language" to "that these were true languages and not just gibberish was certain." Certain? Certain? Ahem: unless they could ID the language, certain is a strong word. The only thing "certain" is that this crop of linguists didn't know how many languages there are. They were off by more than 100 percent! What was the gibberish? Was any genuine effort made to make the gibberish sound like a real language? You know, like the stunt I pulled in TWI, which blessed sooooo many people? We don't know. Samarin makes the point that glossolalia is not gibberish, but unlike this report, Samarin is quite clear in defining his terms. With Samarin, gibberish does not contain the quality of effort to produce a real language present in glossolalia. Is Sherrill hitting on the same thing here? We don't know. What we do know is this: Sherrill and the writer of this piece made their presentations before Samarin's study was presented, so they must be forgiven for not referring back to his work. Sherrill was a writer for a religious publication who went on to become an avid tongues-speaker and who wrote a book on the subject. The title of his book was, in all likelihood, NOT: "I'm Faking Tongues: Here's How You Can, Too!" His objectivity is very much subject to debate. Hmm. Dismiss him? I don't have enough to dismiss him yet. After all, I'm biased too, but I hope you're not dismissing what I say because of it. Why doesn't Poythress cite Sherrill? You would think that if linguists studied glossolalia and determined they were "certainly" languages, someone as open-minded as Poythress would find it worth mentioning. No? Samarin, whose study was published three years after this paper and seven years after Sherrill's book, doesn't even mention him. Why? Why does no one writing after Sherrill cite him as a credible source? And if Sherrill did conduct an unbiased study, why couldn't the results be replicated? Shouldn't Samarin have shown the same results? Shouldn't every linguist who studies glossolalia reach the same conclusion? Did Sherrill happen to have a recording of the only genuine SITters on earth? Results of real scientific studies can be replicated. That is, in fact, the mark of a genuine finding. If I boil water and determine that the boiling point is 212 degrees F, when you independently boil water, the temperature should be 212 degrees F. Have Sherrill's findings been replicated? And dare I ask how his finding of certainty in language content squares with God not participating in the studies? It's intriguing stuff, though, I must say.

This one is a bit more up the alley of my opponents on this page. A search for the name "Sherrill" (cited by Landry and Moore) will save you time. Look for the third occurrence of Sherrill's name. http://kenady.150m.com/chapel/bhs/glossolalia.pdf Personally, I put no more stock in this paper than I do in Wierwille's RTHST, but it's worth putting out there for those looking for ammo against me. :)

For the record, my life goals are to make gold valuable and to popularize the use of water for thirst-quenching.

The article you just promised to read should satisfy your request for documentation from Waysider. I picked that article, incidentally, because it cites some of the same sources that Landry cited, perhaps allowing for a bit more insight into what the cited linguists were saying. That said, I do not know who Mark Moore (the writer) is or what his credentials are, so reader beware. I do think his article is better-written than Landry's paper.

Bringing this up without comment, only to recover what we can of Landry's paper.

By the way, I urge you to read this: http://markmoore.org/resources/essays/tongues.shtml It weighs heavily, though not entirely, in favor of my hypothesis, but there are many things I think you can glean from it to challenge my view.

Chockfull: this is my fault, but there's no L in Poythress. I think I was the first to make that mistake, and I've stuck you with it. I don't want to dismiss Landry just because he was a college student writing a paper for class. That would be ad hominem. But a couple of things need to be noted. One, I cannot vouch for the quality of his analysis, not having seen his primary sources (aside from Samarin). Two, I am reasonably confident that Landry was, at the time, an evangelical kid who set out to write something supportive of SIT, not a cold analysis of what SIT actually produces (I could easily be wrong about this. I'm basing it on his concluding paragraph, which you were kind enough to quote earlier in this thread: That last paragraph does not withstand academic scrutiny). In any event, what Landry writes about other linguistic analyses should stand on its own. It is not false because Landry had an agenda. It is not true because Landry did not have an agenda. Landry has nothing to do with it. It's just that where I would cite Samarin as an authority, I would not do the same for Landry. I doubt that would upset him. So my jury on the statements you made regarding his analysis of Samarin is still out.

The JW thing is worth noting and putting out there for discussion. It is, however, a form of ad hominem reasoning which I've tried to avoid. "You don't have to take this opinion seriously because it's coming from Wierwille, who's a charlatan." Wierwille may have been a charlatan, but that doesn't automatically disqualify anything he said. "You don't have to take the opposite opinion seriously because it's coming from a relapsed JW." Whether or not that's the case (and I assure you it is not), it is irrelevant to whether my hypothesis is correct or not. Briefly touching back on the burden of proof issue, sometimes a hypothesis is presented that cannot be proved but can be ruled out. This happens in some medical diagnoses. To pick an example fresh on my mind, there is no test to prove someone has ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease). ALS does exist, but there's no single test that proves someone has it. What doctors do is rule out everything else. This has applications to both sides of this debate. From your perspective, one side claims to speak in tongues (genuine, Biblical) but has defined SIT in such a way as to make its veracity untestable. The best we can do is seek to rule out all alternative explanations. In my opinion, that side has not successfully ruled out free vocalization undertaken with sincerity (in fact, one of you, if I'm not mistaken, actually defines SIT this way, taking what would otherwise be proof of fakery and turning it into proof of validity!) But more to the point, the hypothesis that it's all a fake cannot be proved. It can, however, be ruled out. In my view, the only way to rule out the hypothesis that it's all a fake would be to produce a language. And we're back to square one. Anyway, that was just on my mind. Bottom line is, you cannot properly dismiss what I'm saying based on my religious views because you are making a testable claim that is true or false irrespective of whether I believe or accept it. You're either speaking in tongues, Biblically, or you're not. The Bible describes what is produced when you speak in tongues. Tongues, in the Bible, are human languages. Not secret codes. Not language-ish things. Languages. They are unknown to the speaker, but they are not unknown to humanity. If we disagree on that, there is no further opportunity for discussion. All this to get to your question: what are my thoughts on your experience? What follows is my opinion. All of it. Please do not (Chockfull) take one paragraph that follows and scold me for not marking it as my opinion. I am doing so right now. Ok? Cool. ;) Allan, what you are doing is sincere. It is heartfelt. You are seeking to do what you believe to be God's Will. Nonetheless, you are in all likelihood not speaking in a language that you have never learned. What you are speaking may sound like a language to you, but no race of people on Earth has ever communicated with each other in that language. Your statement that you are not faking it is a testament to your personal sincerity and integrity, but it is not a testament to the validity of what you are doing. What you are doing is only Biblical SIT if you're speaking a human language. I submit you are not. I cannot prove such without listening to you, possibly recording it, and submitting it to objective analysis. But I'm willing to bet I am right. (If I'm wrong, I recently met someone who will give you $1 million if you can prove it. I'm not kidding). What about JW's? Why are they more reluctant to do it? Waysider correctly points out that they received doctrine that SIT is devilish. Naturally, such people will be more reluctant to engage in the practice than someone who has not been subjected to such a doctrine. In addition, I submit that they are more likely, because of said reluctance, to listen to that voice in their head that tells them "this is just me. I'm 'faking' this." Poythress describes the speaker in such a case, as well as the coach who reassures the speaker that the doubts are just the devil trying to talk you out of it. What about gay people (I refuse to dignify the use of quotes in the word "gay," as if to subtly assert that these folks only think they're gay) speaking in tongues? What about it? Poythress already tells us that anyone can engage in free vocalization. It's not a magic trick. There's nothing supernatural about it. In fact, I would submit that the only logical way to tell a case of free vocalization from a case of genuine SIT would be to compare the results. The results have been compared. There's no distinction. In summary, Allan, you are a free vocalizer who has taught others to free vocalize. It's not God. It's not Satan. It's you and the speaker. I have no doubt as to your sincerity and integrity. I have serious doubt as to the validity of your claim. There's something in logic and debate called Occam's Razor which, while not always applicable, is instructive. When you have two alternative explanations for a set of evidence, the simpler one is usually the correct one. Free vocalization exists. It produces something that sounds like a language and has language-like qualities, but is not a language. SIT is claimed. It produces something that is linguistically indistinguishable from free vocalization. Two explanations: 1. Free vocalization is a human ability that requires no supernatural energizing agent, while SIT is a Christian ability that does require a supernatural energizing agent. The reason we cannot distinguish between free vocalization and SIT is that God may not be cooperating with the analysis, the linguistic analysis may be flawed (it would have to be flawed for both) or... fill in the blank. I don't hold this position and don't want to misrepresent it. 2. SIT is free vocalization, the sincerity of the speaker notwithstanding. I believe the second explanation is the simpler one, and I hold to it until presented with actual evidence to the contrary. Your sincerity is not evidence. A decades-old anecdote with no retrievable primary sources is not evidence. A language would be evidence. Did I answer your question? I apologize if my response comes off as disrespectful. You asked. ;)

Quick vocabulary change: I've previously referred to my position as my "thesis." A thesis is something the presenter considers proved. It is more accurate to call my position a hypothesis. A hypothesis exists to be tested. The notion that all modern SIT is fake is a hypothesis to be tested.

Christopher Walken Excess Baggage Alicia Silverstone

Excy, I adore you, but I don't believe you. People don't follow and post repeatedly on threads that bore them. They ignore them. I'm sure this thread gives you mixed feelings, but I'd be surprised if boredom were truly in the mix.