It was my observation, and your incident bears this out, that tongues wasn't a "proof", or a "sign that it came from God" to unbelievers, but that it got their attention.
It got my attention the first time; I thought it was cool. Peoples responses varied however.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
Quite some time ago a Dr. William T. Samarin spent several years studying SIT practitioners.
Here's a quote from his subsequent book:
"It is extremely doubtful that the alleged cases of xenoglossia (miraculous speech in real languages) are real. Anytime one attempts to verify them, he finds that the stories have been greatly distorted or that the 'witness' turns out to be incompetent or unreliable from a linguistic point of view" (Tongues of Men and Angels, MacMillan, 1972, pp.112-115).
Anyone read the book?
geo.
Xenoglossia...hmmm... yepper... I thinks I will do a little more reading the subject besides KJV memories and pfal experiences...
Any one who would take several years studying sit practitioners must have something to say...
the added plus is the 3-4 years its publication prior my completing the 12th session...
As for SIT and proof, let?s go back to the books we all mastered. On pages 125 and 126 of TNDC we can see that twice Dr mentions the proof of SIT in the context of proving TO ONESELF the indwelling of holy spirit. Seeing someone ELSE speak in tongues can definitely be an attention getter, but it?s the properly executed interpretation that can really speak to their heart.
Below are those pages, from the chapter on ?How to Speak in Tongues.? I want to point out the SELF proof value of SIT in this passage. Look for these sentences (with my ALL-CAPS highlighting:
...YOU have the proof now in the senses-world that YOU have Christ within...
...YOU now have proved TO YOUR SENSES that Christ is in you...
*******
TNDC pages 125-126
If you can speak one word, you can speak ten thousand words; because if you can speak one word, you have the power, the God-given ability, to speak more. Every time you speak remember that you are edifying yourself spiritually, building yourself up. You are speaking the wonderful works of God; you are magnifying God. You have the proof now in the senses-world that you have Christ within, that you are a joint-heir with Him.
In a moment I want you to speak again; to speak once more so that you become fluent and confident from experience. To learn another language by using your mind would take months; but to speak in unknown tongues happens instantly. God knows the tongues, so He gives them to your spirit and you speak them forth.
Anybody who knows even the slightest bit about languages knows that ?beep, beep, beep, boop, boop, boop? would not be speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues is speaking a developed language. Now once more I want you to speak in tongues. Just get quiet. Move your lips, throat, and tongue, and start speaking again. Keep on speaking. You are speaking the wonderful works of God, magnifying God. You now have proved to your senses that Christ is in you and that you have the power of the holy spirit. This is the greatness of God?s wonderful power to you as a believer.
Re:"I know that God operates in such a way as to elude 5-senses researchers and skeptics. God protects their free will believing (or NONbelieving) by leaving few unambiguous traces of His interventions."
So would you say then that God has a soft-spot in his heart for the gullible?
Come to think of it, in addition to my own copyrighteously, non-plagiaristic, self made up nonsense words, I also used supercalifragilisticexpialidocious in excellors sessions.
I'm sorry Mike, but believing things without any verifiable proof is hard-core, undeniable, major-league gullibility. It's nowhere near skepticism, sorry...
I'm saying that gullibility and skepticism ARE far removed from each other; they're opposite extremes of a spectrum. There is a healthy balance somewhere between them of experimentally believing in something, and THEN collecting the verifying data.
Science proceeds this way, with the emphasis on skepticism. I do it too, when the subject is science. But with spiritual matters (which I see in what I think is a good understanding of God's Word) I emphasize a little AWAY from skepticism.
Locked-on total believing takes me many, many years and much verification before I participate.
But Mike, you HAVE no data. At least you've yet to share any. Just suppositions, statements, anecdotes but no data.
If there were real, verifiable, repeatable evidence of any spiritual matters, then skeptics would believe in them as well.
There is not.
The fact that some people have convinced themselves (over many years, maybe) to believe in the veracity of crop circles, Bigfoot, UFOs, astrology, or perpetual motion machines does not make it so. It only shows that they have a penchant for believing in the paranormal. Its not proof of anything else.
Can you name one thing that?s been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to you? I?ll bet that you can?t name many, or that if you think you can, with proper examination, you?d see that there are many little leaps of ?faith? involved.
The more well proved an assertion is, the more trivial the asertion must be. Geometry comes to mind.
Come to think of it, in addition to my own copyrighteously, non-plagiaristic, self made up nonsense words, I also used supercalifragilisticexpialidocious in excellors sessions.
hmmm interesting that I would have a super natural sence about such an event in your life...
On the contrary, I think the case could easily be made that a strong skeptical mindset is what made it possible to walk on the moon or send rovers to Mars. You don't do that kind of science without a strong attachment to reality.
Rockets don't travel to the moon because you believe they will. They make it because someone took the time to PROVE it was possible.
The technology of moon walking is impressive, whether it?s done by Neil Armstrong or Michael Jackson. But compare that technology to "love" or "spirit" and it melts into the trivial.
The science that went into all that technology came in many bundles, extending back 400 years. Experimental believing was involved in every bundle.
Can you name one thing that?s been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to you? I?ll bet that you can?t name many, or that if you think you can, with proper examination, you?d see that there are many little leaps of ?faith? involved.
The more well proved an assertion is, the more trivial the asertion must be. Geometry comes to mind.
Geometry is truth. The leaps of faith are the realisations of truth and not to be confined by leaps of faith. Truth has evidence that the v-8 can be made.
Whoops George ... could not resist... your turn of thot
"Can you name one thing that?s been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to you?"
And who said anything about a "shadow of a doubt"?
There's all sorts of things that I accept as true that may well be erroneous - in fact it's almost a dead certainty. I THINK that the earth's about 23,000 miles in circumference, that it's core is molten nickle, and that it's the third planet from the sun. I don't have any proof for any of that. But it's what I learned in school and there's been no credible person to ever refute it AND it doesn't have any profound effect in how I live my life anyway, so the ramifications of believing falsely are pretty minor. And if someone has better data regarding any of it and can set me straight where I'm misinformed - no problem, I'll listen.
That's not what we're talking about though. We're talking about a belief system that has very substantial effects on how I handle my life. What I do for a living, who I deal with, who I marry, how I raise my children, what I do with my money, my own and my family's healthcare, ad infinitum. The effects in one's life of their religious beliefs are VERY profound.
So if those beliefs are based on something as squishy as SIT and other charasmatic goings on, it's only logical (and responsible) to check into it a little deeper, no?
But no, that's not what the true believer usually does. All too often he adopts the idea that his beliefs - despite the dearth of any proof - are the (only) true ones, and wants to stop his ears and hum if anyone questions his reasoning.
That's not skepticism. That's blatant credulousness.
Re:"The science that went into all that technology came in many bundles, extending back 400 years. Experimental believing was involved in every bundle."
Again on the contrary, there was no shortage of religious belief during the dark ages, yet there was zero advancement in science.
It wasn't until man finally started to shake off the over-bearing religious/superstitious mindset that real science and technological advancements started to take place.
It wasn't monks locked away in cloisters, praying their lives away (or speaking in tongues) that made any headway in improving man's lot in life. It was the cold, unemotional - often godless - "scientist" who was incredibly concerned with undeniable, verifiable, REPEATABLE proof that paved the way for man to creep out of the shadows of ignorance, pestilence, poverty, and superstition and live the life of comparative comfort,health, ease, and rich culture that we enjoy today (at least in the western world).
Superstition is a waste of time, life, and resources. And if you can't prove it, it's likely that's all that it is...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
14
15
39
27
Popular Days
Jan 8
42
Jan 9
25
Jan 7
21
Jan 11
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Georgio Jessio 14 posts
Jbarrax 15 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame 39 posts
Mike 27 posts
Popular Days
Jan 8 2004
42 posts
Jan 9 2004
25 posts
Jan 7 2004
21 posts
Jan 11 2004
18 posts
Posted Images
Oakspear
Jerry:
It was my observation, and your incident bears this out, that tongues wasn't a "proof", or a "sign that it came from God" to unbelievers, but that it got their attention.
It got my attention the first time; I thought it was cool. Peoples responses varied however.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Xenoglossia...hmmm... yepper... I thinks I will do a little more reading the subject besides KJV memories and pfal experiences...
Any one who would take several years studying sit practitioners must have something to say...
the added plus is the 3-4 years its publication prior my completing the 12th session...
Thanks George Aar
Song
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
As for SIT and proof, let?s go back to the books we all mastered. On pages 125 and 126 of TNDC we can see that twice Dr mentions the proof of SIT in the context of proving TO ONESELF the indwelling of holy spirit. Seeing someone ELSE speak in tongues can definitely be an attention getter, but it?s the properly executed interpretation that can really speak to their heart.
Below are those pages, from the chapter on ?How to Speak in Tongues.? I want to point out the SELF proof value of SIT in this passage. Look for these sentences (with my ALL-CAPS highlighting:
...YOU have the proof now in the senses-world that YOU have Christ within...
...YOU now have proved TO YOUR SENSES that Christ is in you...
*******
TNDC pages 125-126
If you can speak one word, you can speak ten thousand words; because if you can speak one word, you have the power, the God-given ability, to speak more. Every time you speak remember that you are edifying yourself spiritually, building yourself up. You are speaking the wonderful works of God; you are magnifying God. You have the proof now in the senses-world that you have Christ within, that you are a joint-heir with Him.
In a moment I want you to speak again; to speak once more so that you become fluent and confident from experience. To learn another language by using your mind would take months; but to speak in unknown tongues happens instantly. God knows the tongues, so He gives them to your spirit and you speak them forth.
Anybody who knows even the slightest bit about languages knows that ?beep, beep, beep, boop, boop, boop? would not be speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues is speaking a developed language. Now once more I want you to speak in tongues. Just get quiet. Move your lips, throat, and tongue, and start speaking again. Keep on speaking. You are speaking the wonderful works of God, magnifying God. You now have proved to your senses that Christ is in you and that you have the power of the holy spirit. This is the greatness of God?s wonderful power to you as a believer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
supercalafragilisticexpialadoloshanto
whoops...
Um-deedledeedledeedle um-deedleday
Um-deedledeedledeedle um-deedleday
Um-deedledeedledeedle um-deedledeedle
Um-deedledeedledeedle um-um um-um um-um
For example...
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious
If you say it loud enough you'll always sound precocious
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Um-deedledeedledeedle um-deedleday
Um-deedledeedledeedle um-deedleday
Um-deedledeedledeedle um-deedleday
Super-super
Supercali
Super Supercalifragi
So when the cat has got your tongue there's no need for dismay
Just summon up this word and then you've got a lot to say
But better use it carefully or it can change your life
For example...
Yes?
One day I said it to me girl and now me girl's me wife
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious
If you say it loud enough you'll always sound precocious
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious
If you say it loud enough you'll always sound precocious
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious
If you say it loud enough you'll always sound precocious
Supercalifragilistic
Supercalifragilistic
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
[This message was edited by TheSongRemainsTheSame on January 08, 2004 at 13:52.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
How about SuperNATURALcalifragilisticexpialidocious ?
.
.
[This message was edited by Mike on January 08, 2004 at 14:19.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Mike,
Re:"I know that God operates in such a way as to elude 5-senses researchers and skeptics. God protects their free will believing (or NONbelieving) by leaving few unambiguous traces of His interventions."
So would you say then that God has a soft-spot in his heart for the gullible?
geo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Come to think of it, in addition to my own copyrighteously, non-plagiaristic, self made up nonsense words, I also used supercalifragilisticexpialidocious in excellors sessions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
George,
I think it?s in Proverbs that God says a fool believes everything he hears.
It's the balance between skepticism and gullibility that I shoot for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I'm sorry Mike, but believing things without any verifiable proof is hard-core, undeniable, major-league gullibility. It's nowhere near skepticism, sorry...
geo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
George,
I'm saying that gullibility and skepticism ARE far removed from each other; they're opposite extremes of a spectrum. There is a healthy balance somewhere between them of experimentally believing in something, and THEN collecting the verifying data.
Science proceeds this way, with the emphasis on skepticism. I do it too, when the subject is science. But with spiritual matters (which I see in what I think is a good understanding of God's Word) I emphasize a little AWAY from skepticism.
Locked-on total believing takes me many, many years and much verification before I participate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
George,
In other words, I'm eager to believe, but careful too.
Being eager with skepticism leads nowhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
But Mike, you HAVE no data. At least you've yet to share any. Just suppositions, statements, anecdotes but no data.
If there were real, verifiable, repeatable evidence of any spiritual matters, then skeptics would believe in them as well.
There is not.
The fact that some people have convinced themselves (over many years, maybe) to believe in the veracity of crop circles, Bigfoot, UFOs, astrology, or perpetual motion machines does not make it so. It only shows that they have a penchant for believing in the paranormal. Its not proof of anything else.
geo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
George,
One last thought before I dash off to work:
Can you name one thing that?s been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to you? I?ll bet that you can?t name many, or that if you think you can, with proper examination, you?d see that there are many little leaps of ?faith? involved.
The more well proved an assertion is, the more trivial the asertion must be. Geometry comes to mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
hmmm interesting that I would have a super natural sence about such an event in your life...
Rok On Mike
Song
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
"Being eager with skepticism leads nowhere."
On the contrary, I think the case could easily be made that a strong skeptical mindset is what made it possible to walk on the moon or send rovers to Mars. You don't do that kind of science without a strong attachment to reality.
Rockets don't travel to the moon because you believe they will. They make it because someone took the time to PROVE it was possible.
geo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Song,
Maybe you were in one of my excellors sessions?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
George,
The technology of moon walking is impressive, whether it?s done by Neil Armstrong or Michael Jackson. But compare that technology to "love" or "spirit" and it melts into the trivial.
The science that went into all that technology came in many bundles, extending back 400 years. Experimental believing was involved in every bundle.
.
.
.
Hi ho. Hi ho. It's off to work...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Geometry is truth. The leaps of faith are the realisations of truth and not to be confined by leaps of faith. Truth has evidence that the v-8 can be made.
Whoops George ... could not resist... your turn of thot
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Mike,
"Can you name one thing that?s been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to you?"
And who said anything about a "shadow of a doubt"?
There's all sorts of things that I accept as true that may well be erroneous - in fact it's almost a dead certainty. I THINK that the earth's about 23,000 miles in circumference, that it's core is molten nickle, and that it's the third planet from the sun. I don't have any proof for any of that. But it's what I learned in school and there's been no credible person to ever refute it AND it doesn't have any profound effect in how I live my life anyway, so the ramifications of believing falsely are pretty minor. And if someone has better data regarding any of it and can set me straight where I'm misinformed - no problem, I'll listen.
That's not what we're talking about though. We're talking about a belief system that has very substantial effects on how I handle my life. What I do for a living, who I deal with, who I marry, how I raise my children, what I do with my money, my own and my family's healthcare, ad infinitum. The effects in one's life of their religious beliefs are VERY profound.
So if those beliefs are based on something as squishy as SIT and other charasmatic goings on, it's only logical (and responsible) to check into it a little deeper, no?
But no, that's not what the true believer usually does. All too often he adopts the idea that his beliefs - despite the dearth of any proof - are the (only) true ones, and wants to stop his ears and hum if anyone questions his reasoning.
That's not skepticism. That's blatant credulousness.
geo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Maybe it was the other way around eh... please pray tell... you were the kid with cholic...???
[This message was edited by TheSongRemainsTheSame on January 08, 2004 at 15:11.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Mike,
Re:"The science that went into all that technology came in many bundles, extending back 400 years. Experimental believing was involved in every bundle."
Again on the contrary, there was no shortage of religious belief during the dark ages, yet there was zero advancement in science.
It wasn't until man finally started to shake off the over-bearing religious/superstitious mindset that real science and technological advancements started to take place.
It wasn't monks locked away in cloisters, praying their lives away (or speaking in tongues) that made any headway in improving man's lot in life. It was the cold, unemotional - often godless - "scientist" who was incredibly concerned with undeniable, verifiable, REPEATABLE proof that paved the way for man to creep out of the shadows of ignorance, pestilence, poverty, and superstition and live the life of comparative comfort,health, ease, and rich culture that we enjoy today (at least in the western world).
Superstition is a waste of time, life, and resources. And if you can't prove it, it's likely that's all that it is...
geo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Georgio Jessio
Mike. We were faking it.
love,
Georgio Jessio
Glow-ry!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
No Way
tididi santada estalla kuturu....blah
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
my people you are so blah
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.