Raf

I am not intentionally saying any more than that

I'm willing to say as a matter of fact that I faked it. I'm willing to say as a matter of fact that others did too (while the CES change in the content of interpretation don't prove this doctrino-practically, it is consistent with and easily explained by the They're All Faking It model). I'm willing to say as a matter of personal attempt to review available evidence that no one practicing SIT in an observable setting has been able to produce an actual example of xenoglossia as described in Acts 2. Considering that Acts 2 presents a clear example of xenoglossia, an actual language, and that Paul's reference to tongues of angels has the marking of a hyperbolic brag that he does not intend literally, I have what I think is a reasonable expectation that SIT should typically produce a human language. With no actual evidence to suggest otherwise, I conclude as a matter of opinion that people claiming SIT are engaged in a practice that is producing something other than what the Bible describes, but something very, very similar to my admitted fakery. My opinion, subject to contradiction by yet unavailable or undisclosed evidence, is that we're all faking it. If we're wrong and the Bible is describing something true, it would behoove us to seek that truth.

This got lost in the flames, but I'm not asking anyone to prove anything. I'm responding to a demand for proof. So if you're not asking me to prove my point, I am not asking you to prove yours. That brings us back to the original point of the thread: I know I wasn't alone in faking my way through it. Anyone else who did so, all I can say is that I have found fessing up quite liberating. Yes, I believe 100 percent of us fall into this category. No, I can't prove it. Won't be the first time you've disagreed with me, I'm sure. Sure as heck won't be the last. And that's ok with me.

Is it me, or has most of the discussion now turned unmistakably doctrinal?

You may be onto something there, but I'm not persuaded. It could be one of those things where honest people disagree. What Paul says is "if i speak on the tongues of men or of angels and i don't have love, i am become as sounding brass or tinkling cymbal." I think he's talking there about the effect on the congregation, not the short-circuiting of SIT. Otherwise, how to equate the first half of the analogy with the second if we're being literal (or literalish) about the second? In other words, how could you literally speak in the tongues of men or angels AND literally be making up fv at the same time? You can't. So i don't think it's quite saying what you suggest, but i could see folks interpreting that way and, subsequently, taking the rest on faith, as it were. Nice observation.

I was addressing JohnIAm on what I believe to be his terms. Not judging your contribution to the "realm" discussion either way.

So you're saying that if your method of turning coal into a diamond was invalid, you have not invalidated the truth that diamonds are produced by squeezing coal. It just means that no matter how much you believed, so to speak, what YOU unwrapped was not a diamond.

There's a leap from no one is doing it to no one CAN do it that I am not prepared to make. The Bible, to my reading, merely says it can be done. It says nothing about everyone claiming to do it should be presumed genuine until proved otherwise (or vice versa, to be fair). Believing that we, innocently, kidded ourselves should not detract from faith at all. If anything, it should inspire in the seeker a fervent quest for what SIT should be. In any event, chockfull, we're at loggerheads on the bigger, fatter claim issue. I will drop it.

P.S. Was the spiderman musical any good?

John! Well said. Except, of course, that has nothing to do with the fact that SIT is manifested in the senses realm and therefore can be observed and analyzed, unlike the resurrection, which can't. At least not today. So it is a different kind of question, despite similarities.

Vegas

Although the article I posted agrees with my conclusion, I would not have cited it in the original thread. I probably would havw gone to his sources and posted them. If Vern is somewhat biased, he at least provided useful info. This guy seems to have been on a mission. My bet is we would have spent too much time discussing why he shouldn't be ignored just because of his conclusion.

It would seem consistent to me that if the church at Corinth were exercising free vocalization under my definition, it might go a long way toward explaining why Paul felt such.a pressing need to spend time correcting them. But I suspect it would not explain the correction itself, which doesn't even seem to consider the possibility of fakery. But if you're thinking something else when you use the same term, maybe you're onto something. I can't tell.

I'm using Free Vocalization as a less abrasive synonym for lied and faked. how are you using it?

The purpose of this thread is to provide links that discuss the practice of speaking in tongues from a perspective of trying to determine what's actually taking place there. While not inherently a doctrinal discussion, it may provide resources that help us draw our conclusions in both doctrinal and practical (ie, "About the Way" or "Open") contexts. This first one agrees with me (did you think it wouldn't? Did you not see what happened when I posted something that didn't completely agree with me? heh heh heh). http://charlesdailey.net/TonguesHolton.html And yes, of course, he quotes Samarin. Shoot, if Samarin's wrong, I'll be wiping egg off my face for centuries. Oh, and feel free to post your own. A brief summary would be nice, but the only thing I request is that it's relevant.

And we're at 500 replies. Which would be considered remarkable if I didn't account for 470 of them. Anyway, I was thinking of starting a "SIT/linguistics online bibliography" where we can all post links to various studies, abstracts, and apologetics. Where would such a thing go? Not here. Doctrinal? I think that's probably the place most would look for such a thing, no? Thoughts? Then again, they all seem to just come back to Samarin. Is anyone else finding this?

Better?

I will wait until Monday and give other people a chance to participate, buuuuddddy

Roundabout?

You're not wrong, excy, but you're not right either. In MY OPINION (for whatever it's worth), the question of the validity of our practice of speaking in tongues is qualitatively different from questions like "is there a God" and "was Jesus raised from the dead." Those last two questions are impossible to prove, one way or the other. There either is or there isn't. He either was or He wasn't. You can't record it, analyze it, put it in a beaker, boil it, etc. It's not provable. It's not disprovable. You take the available evidence and you make a leap of faith. The question of tongues has lots in common with the other questions, with one major distinction. It IS testable. What you speak can be recorded, replayed, analyzed, compared to known languages, etc. Now, if one were to summarily reject the testing, the discussion is over without either side having been proved or disproved. If one were to accept the testing and prove the veracity of the practice by producing a known language, or even an unknown language with the unmistakable characteristics of a known language (say, Tolkien's Elvish). Ultimately, the practice can't be disproved completely without submitting every speaker to testing. What are we left with? The only way to stop the speculation is to find a tongues speaker who produces a known language, someone who can demonstrate that he has not been exposed to the language in question, has not read it, heard it, practiced it, etc., and whose messages are saying what the Bible says they should say. So my position can be disproved with a single bona fide example of SIT. But it can never really be proved. Guys, we were supposed to have at least 100,000 tongues speakers (did that number ever go up? Shouldn't it have, by now?). Surely we can find ONE!?! Unless God won't let us, in which case (and only in which case) the premise that it cannot be proved or disproved becomes true. No way to know that. But I'll keep looking until He tells me to stop. He has my cell number. However, if God won't let us be tested, what does that say of the people who agreed to be tested? No honest escaping of the answer: they faked it. And when they faked it (we're assuming here God won't allow it to be tested) they did not appear to recognize any difference between their faking it and their genuine experiences. Does that tell you something about their alleged genuine experiences? Your answer to that question is a matter of deep personal faith. I can't argue with it. Me, I believe it speaks volumes. Like, Encyclopedia Brittanica sized volumes (whatever happened to those guys?). I sense I'm getting redundant. I hope I've satisfactorily addressed your question without disrespecting your right to disagree with me. One last add to this post and I promise I'll let it go: I am willing to drop my use of the variants of "lies" and, until it becomes necessary to confront an issue head on (as in, two paragraphs ago), "fake" and replace it with "free vocalization" if that soothes the pain people understandably feel when they are, effectively, called liars. I've always conceded it was a harsh word, and I appreciate that so many were willing to overcome it to take on the issue.

The evidence, what there is of it, is against it when comparing the practice of teaching tongues with the description of non-religious free vocalization combined with Samarin's hypothesis of motive affecting outcome. God said so, every Tuesday and Thursday.

I keep forgetting to bring this up, but there is ONE contingency I had not seriously considered (nor am I now, but it needs to be raised in fairness). I think we can safely assume, although we MIGHT be wrong, that Samarin's study included no TWI SITters. If (and this is a Jupiter-sized if) TWI and its offshoots are the only people producing the real thing, then my thesis is wrong and we would never see it because they have not been part of these studies. Stop laughing!

I'm gonna put a toe in this pool, and I'll trust you guys to let me know if the water starts to boil and I should step out: What's the bigger, fatter claim? "In the privacy of my quiet time with God (or at a meeting of believers, or in my car, or wherever I want: whichever fits your view), I am able to bring forth a language I have never known and never been exposed to, a language whose meaning is known only to the heavenly host and the Almighty Creator of the Universe." "I know you love God and appreciate your sincerity, but no, brother, no you can't." Which is the bigger, fatter claim?

I would have thought this was easy. that is a hint

Chockfull, that post took a ton of restraint. I applaud you for it. without agreeing with me, Steve appears to have tackled that very subject, as have you. I don't have an answer for you. Excy, the short answer for me is no. The longer answer is that proving the resurrection is very much like proving God; it's an untestable premise. The best we have is the Bible's assurance that there were a truckload of witnesses bigger than my Twitter followers list, at least some of whom preferred to die rather than renounce a belief whose validity they knew firsthand. Would you die for a belief you knew to be false?