SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

And I will repeat, ask Mike if my previous posts lacked edge. Ask JohnIsBack whether our previous exchanges have been marked by politeness.

You detect a new edginess because this time you disagree with my conclusion. There was apparently no edginess in calling my methodology Satanic or painting me as a crybaby politician. No, the "edginess" is when I call that out. Gee, he's so bitter.

I don't mean to restart anything with chockfull, but it just seems to me that the "wow, look at the edginess here" is just a TAD one-sided.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Raf

[OldSkool]

You detect a new edginess because this time you disagree with my conclusion.

I never stated whether or not I disagree with you. You are not the expert on my point of view, only yours. I never called your position satanic and never painted you as a crybaby politician. Why the intent on seeing it either your way or the other?

Honestly, in the four years I have not been with TWI this is the first time I have really delved into what they taught on the topic. Really, I am more inclined to agree with you on many points. But to be clear, I have not chosen a "side," despite your attempts to categorize me in the "other sides" camp.

[Raf]

Touche on your first paragraph... And your last. Well said all around. Driving now, so will respond more when I can

Edited September 21, 2012 by Raf

[OldSkool]

Touche on your first paragraph... And your last. Well said all around. Driving now, so will respond more when I can

No worries. Have a good one and we can catch up a little later. I am more interesting in getting back on topic than our side show. Laters.

[geisha779]

quote: I am simple folk.....but, I am still curious why we thought we could improve, perfect, expand or excel in an unknown language. Anybody?

1 Cor. 14:4a - He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself...

Why thank-you Johniam....but, I already know TWI doctrine.

Context context, context. How would the implication of that verse change if we paid really close attention to the context? It would take a vast departure from that verse being ANY kind of plausible answer. It does come on the heels of a beautiful description of genuine love, which doesn't seek its own satisfaction. Again, and for the last time, Paul is speaking to a bunch of immature Christians and some fake ones who are climbing over each other trying to display the most fantastic of gifts.....and he does mention that even if he spoke in an angels tongue.....an even more fantastic display......if he has no love it is pointless.

Even if one is speaking to God in a tongue.....if no one understands it. . . . it is certainly a "mystery" to all but God. . . isn't it? The person doing it is happy and edified because they are displaying the fantastic and using their gift. Albeit, I believe, inappropriately,.

Getting together after PAYING for the privilege and PRACTICING to edify ourselves takes what the Corinthians were doing to a whole new level. I can't practice a language unknown to me.....all I can do is form some words that may SOUND like a language. I can't improve on something genuinely from God. . . . but, I can get better at faking it.

If you want to post a response in the doctrinal forum I will take a look, but this thread isn't really about doctrine....so that is all I am going to say about edifying yourself.

Edited September 21, 2012 by geisha779

[Steve Lortz]

I think discussions of tone detract from the discussion as much as the tone itself does.

This thread went on for a few pages before it got contentious, and even with the "lie" language in the first posts, it didn't start getting ugly until much later.

I'm not proposing a solution. Despite the pop psychology that's gone on here, there is little difference between how I've posted here and how I've posted in other threads. True, it's been a while since I decided to venture into all these discussions, so some of you might not remember that. But I assure you JohnWhereDidHeGo does not see any difference in how I'm dealing with him, because we've rarely been on the same side of anything. Oldiesman and I have had truces, but more arguments than truces. Mike, fuhgeddaboutit.

But now I'm not taking on Wierwille-worship or inordinate respect for Wierwillism. Now I'm looking at something that hits at the heart of many people's prayer lives. So it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that anyone would get deeply and personally upset. What surprises me is the expectation that I will NOT respond the way I have.

I do apologize for striking so close to everyone's hearts.

But the way I see it, that's only because a lie has been placed there that is very difficult and painful to root out.

Yeah, yeah. You don't agree with me. Ok, I get that.

But if you (or anyone reading) ever comes to the realization that, "shoot, you mean NO one has produced a verified, documented example of tongues of men? We ALL speak tongues of angels? ALL of us? Gee, I'm skeptical," know this: you're not alone. You're not the first. You won't be the last. Come on out. Faking a spiritual experience doesn't fool Him (and, you know, it doesn't fool you either).

If that doesn't apply to you, then it's not addressed to you. I have my belief, you have yours, they're incompatible and there's more than enough room for both.

If it does apply to you: I get it. And it's ok.

Well said, Raf, well said!

I don't agree with you, but I think this is something we all should deeply consider. And I don't see how I could have sparked this much interest with my attitude. My paper is going to rile some people up, but I don't think it will disturb the thinking-rut of TWI survivors anywhere near as much as this thread does. I want to continue to challenge your position, but I'm not doing it so much to try to persuade you as to have you challenge my thinking back. My brother and I used to do this all the time. When he was dying, and he knew there would come a time during the process when he could no longer speak for himself, he told everybody that he wanted me to speak for him when that time came, because he believed we knew each other's mind. I considered that just about the highest complement I ever received. I consider you a genuine sparring-partner friend, Raf!

Love,

Steve

[chockfull]

You're assuming those messages were genuine. Quite a stretch, based on what we've been discussing. But, no matter. Suppose we call it "group reinforcement". Would you be more open to consider that possibility?

I'm not assuming they were or were not genuine. I'm just not ready to write off the entire Charismatic Christian movement.

[chockfull]

You detect a new edginess because this time you disagree with my conclusion. There was apparently no edginess in calling my methodology Satanic or painting me as a crybaby politician. No, the "edginess" is when I call that out. Gee, he's so bitter.

For me there was edginess in discussing our sources. We both probably magnified the portions of the sources that aligned with our positions rather than accurately reflecting the source, background, and conclusions. On your methodology I feel you magnified the point I was making beyond it's intention. I don't consider your methodology Satanic.

I was edgy, that's why I apologized.

[waysider]

I'm not assuming they were or were not genuine. I'm just not ready to write off the entire Charismatic Christian movement.

I don't think I was implying you should write off the entire Charismatic Christian movement.

I was explaining how I perceive a connection between what we were hearing in those believers meetings and how it influenced/enforced our thinking. It happened in group settings, on an individual level. (group reinforcement of modified self awareness)

[Raf]

I'm not really intent on people seeing it one way or another. I mean, I am, just as we all are. That's human. But count the number of people who've openly disagreed with me yet have not received any arguments or nasty responses from me. I have no interest in beating people over the head with my point of view. However, when told to prove my point, I put the burden where it belongs: since my point can't be proven without examining each speaker, but it CAN be disproved by ONE speaker producing a known language, clearly, the easier thing should be to disprove my thesis.

It hasn't happened: in my view because it can't, in the view of others because God won't allow it.

Well, I can't argue with God, so in a lot of ways the conversation should end there. But I'm not obliged to concede my point of view on that basis. You'll find, I think, that most of the disagreement expressed on the thread stems from here.

I don't find that kind of "God won't let us test SIT" reasoning acceptable. The Rev. Vern is open to it, although he doesn't agree with it in principle (and cites scripture to back it up. Then again, so does Satan).

Do you see how the explanation for how it works is supernatural, yet the explanation for why no one can prove it works is ALSO supernatural? Doesn't that strike you as a tad bit convenient?

A theory is tested against available facts. The more facts fit the theory, the more reliable the theory is. If another theory is going to lay claim to the facts, that theory would have to do a better job of explaining the facts than the first theory. I submit that in this argument, all the facts are aligned on one theory. The competing theory considers it a success when its attempted application fails.

My theory: people who think they are speaking in tongues are actually making it up in their heads. Their desire to do it is strong, and they truly love God and are "asking Him for a fish." Surrounded by other tongues speakers (either literally, in PFAL, or figuratively, in private) they do something completely unremarkable, spiritually speaking. They begin to engage in free vocalization. Going into the process with the preconceived notion that what comes out must sound like a language, they vary the sounds that come out of their mouths. They don't pre-think the sounds, but they know it's not going to be beep beep beep, boop boop boop. The creativity of the human mind is such that when we perform this exercise, we can develop quite a "vocabulary." (Note that I put that word in quotes and am not meaning it as literally true). We stop. We asked God for a fish. We gave ourselves chili. We surrounded each other and congratulated each other and bore witness to the day we saw you catch your first fish. Because so many of us did the same thing, the majority in the same way, we bound ourselves to each other in a way most fraternities could only dream. But there was nothing supernatural about it. Any child could do what we did. An atheist could do it. A pagan Buddhist Catholic could do it. ;). It wasn't God.

If I'm right, you will never document someone speaking in tongues and producing a real language (not something that has language like qualities. I'm talking French. Russian. Yiddish. Chinese. Swahili. An honest to God language). When I search the facts, I need find only one exception, one, to prove me wrong.

The competing theory searches for alternative reasons to explain why observable facts will never bear it out.

Forgive me if I find that theory less satisfying.

Edited September 23, 2012 by modcat5
Typos removed/fixed

[waysider]

Have you ever heard a TIP that wasn't "accurate"? (I use that term loosely.)

It couldn't, logically, have been a genuine interpretation of the tongue. Likewise, it couldn't have been a genuine prophesy, for obvious reasons. So, what options are we left with?

[chockfull]

Do you see how the explanation for how it works is supernatural, yet the explanation for why no one can prove it works is ALSO supernatural. Doesn't that strike you as a tad bit convenient?

For me, I approach my faith from a child-like relationship basis. That's where I get my inspiration. I approach my job and other things from a scientific basis. That's where I can measure and see advances and progress.

For me, it doesn't work to mix them too closely. When I do, I see issues like have arisen from this thread discussion. Not Satanic, but inherently problematic.

Are having two different approaches congruent? Possibly not. It works for me. Is it conflicting? When I try to intertwine the two like on this thread it is. Outside of that, I'm fine. I get my inspiration, I get to not live in a dream world. Works for me.

When evaluating groups and extending my loyalty, I need a thorough vetting of both. Otherwise my child-like side will trust too much like I did with TWI.

Edited September 21, 2012 by chockfull

[Raf]

Couple of things to note: My last post was written before I had the opportunity to read the three or four (more?) that came before it. I didn't mean to ignore anyone.

Second, in case it wasn't clear, I do not agree with the contention that neither theory can be proved or disproved. Mine can certainly be disproved, and the moment we document SIT resulting in xenoglossia, both sides will agree that one theory was proved beyond doubt at the expense of the other.

And third, please not some small but substantive edits on my previous post, in case someone has quoted me from the "first edition," as it were.

[waysider]

According to Way Theology, messages brought forth in believers meetings were never supposed to involve anything that specifically referenced the future. They were supposed to be general in nature.

With that in mind, consider this.

Instead of having mannies, you pause briefly to give the group some general words of encouragement.

It goes something like this:

Twig leader>>waysider, would you bring forth some encouragement?

waysider>>>>>Hey fellas, keep your chins up. Everything's gonna be cool.

Well, of course you might think, "What does he know? He's just some punk kid who eats Moonpies and drinks Nehi Soda!"

But, change the source of the same message and it might sound like this.... "My precious children, despair not, for I, the Lord thy God, will keep thee safe."

............................................................................................

There's a point in all that but I don't think I'm doing too well at expressing it.

[chockfull]

Second, in case it wasn't clear, I do not agree with the contention that neither theory can be proved or disproved. Mine can certainly be disproved, and the moment we document SIT resulting in xenoglossia, both sides will agree that one theory was proved beyond doubt at the expense of the other.

So what if God chooses not to participate in your little experiment producing proof? That's the extent of my argument that you are labeling "Satanic methods".

[Raf]

As I said, in a lot of ways, the conversation ends there. Who am I, that I should withstand God?

Except for those people who did agree to experiment, spoke in tongues, and faked it. You have to tell them that. Remember, God's not participating in the experiment. They're speaking in tongues. They must be faking it. You tell them. ;)

Edited September 21, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

Also, if God is not participating in the study, then all of Samarin's findings about the qualities of language that he DID detect in glossolalia become irrelevant. You would now be conceding that something utterly made up by the speaker (God is not participating in the experiment) can have some qualities of language.

So... We... Agree?

[geisha779]

For me, I approach my faith from a child-like relationship basis. That's where I get my inspiration. I approach my job and other things from a scientific basis. That's where I can measure and see advances and progress.

For me, it doesn't work to mix them too closely. When I do, I see issues like have arisen from this thread discussion. Not Satanic, but inherently problematic.

Are having two different approaches congruent? Possibly not. It works for me. Is it conflicting? When I try to intertwine the two like on this thread it is. Outside of that, I'm fine. I get my inspiration, I get to not live in a dream world. Works for me.

When evaluating groups and extending my loyalty, I need a thorough vetting of both. Otherwise my child-like side will trust too much like I did with TWI.

I don't get this answer at all. And it is humble yourself like a child before God.....and receive the kingdom like a child....but, it is also grow up and put away child like things. Your faith, will not be rocked, unless your faith is dependent on your SIT being real. If it is.....it is best to chuck it anyway. We don't simply believe things like a kid without first really examining them, challenging them, and considering the scriptures. That is how we got into a mess in the first place.

The problem as I see it....is not that challenge and child-like faith have collided on this thread, but that closely held and dear doctrines.....are difficult to let go of......if we want to believe them. Even if they are wrong. Been there and may still be there. I truly get that. But, child like faith is not a reason for not taking a closer look and rising to the challenge. If it is true.....God will keep up His end. That is faith.

[chockfull]

As I said, in a lot of ways, the conversation ends there. Who am I, that I should withstand God?

Except for those people who did agree to experiment, spoke in tongues, and faked it. You have to tell them that. Remember, God's not participating in the experiment. They're speaking in tongues. They must be faking it. You tell them. ;)

Maybe they did fake it, maybe they didn't. Maybe God is participating, maybe He isn't. I just posed the question as a legitimate possibility that God could decide to turn off the spiritual side of things in an experiment where someone is trying to tempt / test Him.

I'm a little past the point of dictating to God what He is and is not going to do.

I'm bringing it up because you can't rule it out as a possibility.

[Raf]

Agreed. And, by the same logic, you can't rule out the possibility that someone making it up can produce something that has qualities of language even though it's all coming from their head and God has nothing to do with it.

[chockfull]

I don't get this answer at all. And it is humble yourself like a child before God.....and receive the kingdom like a child....but, it is also grow up and put away child like things. Your faith, will not be rocked, unless your faith is dependent on your SIT being real. If it is.....it is best to chuck it anyway. We don't simply believe things like a kid without first really examining them, challenging them, and considering the scriptures. That is how we got into a mess in the first place.

The problem as I see it....is not that challenge and child-like faith have collided on this thread, but that closely held and dear doctrines.....are difficult to let go of......if we want to believe them. Even if they are wrong. Been there and may still be there. I truly get that. But, child like faith is not a reason for not taking a closer look and rising to the challenge. If it is true.....God will keep up His end. That is faith.

The problem with this line of reasoning to me is that God instructs us to come to Him like a little child. Jesus teaches this. I didn't say I believed "things" like a little kid, I said that's my approach towards God. I believe you've seen enough of my posts on here to know that I challenge things, consider scriptures, etc.

I don't have a closely held and dear doctrine on this issue. I just pray like I have since I've been a child in high school. I've proved Him many times in my life, and how I pray doesn't seem to be an issue to Him. And sometimes I take issue with people calling me names and saying I'm deluding myself, when God doesn't.

You can try to make it about something else, but that doesn't change what it's about to me. And I have taken a closer look, and rose to the challenge.

If you have a problem with my child-like relationship with God, then what I will suggest is maybe it's exactly that - your problem.

Agreed. And, by the same logic, you can't rule out the possibility that someone making it up can produce something that has qualities of language even though it's all coming from their head and God has nothing to do with it.

I agree with this. Reading through the scientific studies it seems apparent that people can do this regardless of their beliefs. So much so that I see the phenomenon associated with religiously motivated people categorized with a different term - "T-Speech".

[Raf]

What we don't see in the studies is any linguistic difference between Tspeech (I could be wrong, but I think this term is exclusive to Rev. Vern) and non-religious free vocalization (ditto, in this context).

[waysider]

My impression of the way he's drawing distinctions is that he's referencing the same thing, presented in different contexts. (T-speech is not different from free speech, it's the same thing in a different setting.)

[chockfull]

What we don't see in the studies is any linguistic difference between Tspeech (I could be wrong, but I think this term is exclusive to Rev. Vern) and non-religious free vocalization (ditto, in this context).

Confirmed Vern didn't note linguistic differences.

My impression of the way he's drawing distinctions is that he's referencing the same thing, presented in different contexts. (T-speech is not different from free speech, it's the same thing in a different setting.)

My impression too - my read on it was he was dealing with that category separately partially to see what elements might be different other than the motivating beliefs in back of it.

[Raf]

I think that's what Vern describes, Waysider, but he stops just short of making that conclusion.