SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[WordWolf]

So if I had included an option in the poll:

I faked it plenty of times, but not always

The poll results might be a little different?

Hm.

Good question.

I think I would have gone for it, and I think some other people would have,

sooner or later.

Having been trained to fake it, it's tough to say with any surety I ever did it for real,

and at least SIT would be tough to really say it with evidence and confidence.

I think the case would have to go for "prophecy" or "interpretation."

[Bolshevik]

SIT/prophecy was always a very humiliating experience. I feared fellowship all day because I knew I would likely be called upon. If I wasn't called upon, I felt relieved. If I was, I felt ashamed when it was over.

In exceler sessions you were taught to practice with different syllables, try a new language maybe. Wasn't that supposed to be their god's decision?

If your prophecy was not inspiring, or redundant, or similar to what the last person just "prophecied" . . . you got yelled at. Clearly, you had not studied enough or been SITing privately enough.

If you paid attention, some people always spoke in tongues the same way each time . . . but the interpretation would be different. No Rosetta stones for SIT.

I was lying. They were lying. We were lying.

Some folks had a natural gift . . . but it clearly wasn't supernatural.

[Pete]

Well, looks like I should have remembered III Peter 2:2

Young man who drinks too much on an evening, ends up having p1ss1ng contest in middle of night.

Raf, you pose some interesting and valid questions. As you say, it would have been better if those types of tests were done, but possibly they didn't think any further ahead than the particular issue that they were addressing at the time.

This discussion has brought back some interesting memories for me. I never SIT in the 12th session. I flatly refused. This is difficult when you are faced with a high degree of peer pressure, and everyone else jabbering away in the background. Afterwards the class coordinator took me to a separate room to find out what was wrong. I just didn't like the way it was done in the 12th session. I had no advanced warning that this was going to happen in the way that it did. I felt that I was being co-erced into doing something in a way that I wasn't comfortable with. This was all wrong to me. However, when asked to SIT afterwards, I did. And I didn't make it up and it was fully formed the first time I did it. It has not get any better from that fist time.

Now I did study a bit of basic French at school. But the language and syllables that came forth that day were from an entirely different vocabulary to anything I had experienced before. And the language was consistent: not French one moment and then Italian the next if you understand. Same glutteral stops, same basic sound structure. Anyone could tell that this was a language.

I've never needed to, or wanted to make up the language myself.

If it is not genuine SIT, the alternative is that I somehow have the ability somewhere in my brain to conjure up a completely foreign language that I have absolutely no comprehension of as to its meaning.

That's going to take quite a few dollars of research money to work out, in my opinion.

[Pete]

Old Skool

Thanks for posting the link.

It's some time since I viewed the documentary and I don't think that this is the same one. The documentary I saw concentrated on a single subject for the tongues analysis and I seem to remember them being wired up with sensors on their brain. Also, the documentary identified the area of the brain that was active when the person was SIT. But my memory isn't totally reliable and the item shown hits on similar stuff.

As far as the posted link goes, I have to say that the lady who says that she is "out of control" is experiencing something that is different from what I experience. I would speculate that her SIT is genuine, but that her "out of control" bit is personal to her.

But hey, if that's where she need to go, who am I to object, only I hope that she really means that she's just getting herself in a cool relaxed state of mind, rather than actually being "out of control".

I try not to get myself out of control in case when I get back in control I find out that I've murdered someone, or worse.

[Pete]

Bolshevik

I can relate to what you say, and I experienced much the same, only I never got yelled at in that way as far as I recall.

I think that it is totally shameful that they yelled at you that way.

That is a traumatic experience to go through and one that could have affected you in a bad way.

It wasn't your problem and you have to understand that.

You didn't do anything wrong, they did!

My only question would be, just because the Way scr3wed things up, does that make the whole thing false?

[Raf]

Well, looks like I should have remembered III Peter 2:2

Young man who drinks too much on an evening, ends up having p1ss1ng contest in middle of night.

Raf, you pose some interesting and valid questions. As you say, it would have been better if those types of tests were done, but possibly they didn't think any further ahead than the particular issue that they were addressing at the time.

This discussion has brought back some interesting memories for me. I never SIT in the 12th session. I flatly refused. This is difficult when you are faced with a high degree of peer pressure, and everyone else jabbering away in the background. Afterwards the class coordinator took me to a separate room to find out what was wrong. I just didn't like the way it was done in the 12th session. I had no advanced warning that this was going to happen in the way that it did. I felt that I was being co-erced into doing something in a way that I wasn't comfortable with. This was all wrong to me. However, when asked to SIT afterwards, I did. And I didn't make it up and it was fully formed the first time I did it. It has not get any better from that fist time.

Now I did study a bit of basic French at school. But the language and syllables that came forth that day were from an entirely different vocabulary to anything I had experienced before. And the language was consistent: not French one moment and then Italian the next if you understand. Same glutteral stops, same basic sound structure. Anyone could tell that this was a language.

I've never needed to, or wanted to make up the language myself.

If it is not genuine SIT, the alternative is that I somehow have the ability somewhere in my brain to conjure up a completely foreign language that I have absolutely no comprehension of as to its meaning.

That's going to take quite a few dollars of research money to work out, in my opinion.

You had me at Anyone could tell this was a language.

With respect, Pete, probably not. Unless your experience is vastly different from those studied or confessed to, what you brought forth was likely a series of sounds with some language-like qualities that you bring to the table with your background in speaking English, some French and whatever else.

it's not genuine SIT, and you do not have the ability in your brain to conjure up a completely foreign language. That's not a language you're speaking. It's not that you have no comprehension as to the meaning of what you're saying. What you're saying HAS no meaning.

[waysider]

it's not genuine SIT, and you do not have the ability in your brain to conjure up a completely foreign language. That's not a language you're speaking. It's not that you have no comprehension as to the meaning of what you're saying. What you're saying HAS no meaning.

This point, in particular, helps greatly in understanding that it's not a uniquely Christian ability. Christians can do it. Jews can do it. Shamans can do it. The list goes on. How is that possible? Simple. It's merely an innate ability of the human mind to "speak in tongues". It might sound genuine and be presented with theatrical fanfare but, in the end, it's not a real language. There are plenty of recorded examples that could be examined from a mathematical perspective to show that it's not real. I think, for some people, that would prove to be like chasing the end of the rainbow.

I'm reminded of the movie The Gods Must Be Crazy. In it, a group of people who have never had contact with the world outside their cultural sphere are confronted with the discovery of a Coke bottle that has been discarded by someone in a passing airplane. The bottle could be this or the bottle could be that but, ultimately, the bottle is just a bottle.

HERE

Edited October 13, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

Getting mixed signals from Word Wolf. What are you asserting or admitting regarding your own experience with respect to each of the three inspiration manifestations?

Edited October 13, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

it's not genuine SIT, and you do not have the ability in your brain to conjure up a completely foreign language. That's not a language you're speaking. It's not that you have no comprehension as to the meaning of what you're saying. What you're saying HAS no meaning.

No, that's your opinion. To state the conclusions in this fashion you would have had to prove it, which all have agreed you are not able to do. Now the paragraph before states "likely" which is more accurate. This one is inaccurate, as it is opinion stated as fact.

That is definitely one thing I had more than enough of in TWI...

I mean on the other side of the coin, I could state to Pete:

"Pete, you absolutely were speaking in tongues, an unknown language. The scriptures speak of it, you acted on the scriptures, and God came through with the results. Don't doubt it because of skeptics."

But, I don't state things in that way because they are unproven with respect to this thread.

Edited October 13, 2012 by chockfull

[waysider]

Isn't this sort of proof a bit like saying, "If you're not here, raise your hand."?

[chockfull]

Isn't this sort of proof a bit like saying, "If you're not here, raise your hand."?

No, this sort of proof is a bit like there is something supernatural we are trying to prove, and are unable to accomplish it one way or the other.

[waysider]

It's really quite simple. It can be proven that a sample of speaking in tongues is not a language. It cannot be proven that a sample of speaking in tongues is a language. The onus of proof has somehow been reversed in this argument.

Edited October 13, 2012 by waysider

[chockfull]

Tip: click inside this box to load the editor

What?

[Raf]

Yes and no, chockfull. Whether he was speaking a real language is a matter of fact that can be examined and determined with relative ease. It is not a matter of opinion.

However, you are correct in that I am indeed expressing my opinion of what such an examination would show, as well as the implication, Biblically, if it is not an earthly language. The paragraph you quoted was preceded by the context of "probably not" and "unless you experienced something vastly different from what has been studied or confessed."

Curious: why did you call me out for expressing my opinion with confidence I am right, yet you let Pete's assertion that Anyone could tell this was a language go unchallenged? Isn't that opinion, quite falsifiable or verifiable, just as much an expression of opinion as fact?

No, this sort of proof is a bit like there is something supernatural we are trying to prove, and are unable to accomplish it one way or the other.

and one more time: you could prove it in a heartbeat by producing a verifiable language. ;)

Edited October 13, 2012 by Raf

[OldSkool]

I am pretty sure this thread has turned into a circle jerk.

[waysider]

What?

Sorry...clicked the wrong thing

It's called a Burden of Proof Fallacy.

[Raf]

I am pretty sure this thread has turned into a circle jerk.

What did you call me? ;)

Edited October 13, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

Yes and no, chockfull. Whether he was speaking a real language is a matter of fact that can be examined and determined with relative ease. It is not a matter of opinion.

No it can't. What he spoke wasn't recorded. If it was recorded, it may be like many other samples. Polythress, to remind you, presented findings that free vocalization had many elements of language, including grammatical breakdowns like language of sentence and phrase. So by that he did NOT prove one way or another that the samples he studied were or were not languages. His conclusions were NOT that the samples were not languages, he just noted the details of what he did find. In that he was scientifically truthful to his method.

However, you are correct in that I am indeed expressing my opinion of what such an examination would show, as well as the implication, Biblically, if it is not an earthly language. The paragraph you quoted was preceded by the context of "probably not" and "unless you experienced something vastly different from what has been studied or confessed."

Yes I noted the previous paragraph to include the word "likely". I took issue with a single paragraph.

Curious: why did you call me out for expressing my opinion with confidence I am right, yet you let Pete's assertion that Anyone could tell this was a language go unchallenged? Isn't that opinion, quite falsifiable or verifiable, just as much an expression of opinion as fact?

To me his statement was an expression of how he was feeling at the time, and did not come across as an expression of fact or an attempt to express fact. Yours did, so that's why I singled it out. Maybe you read his statement differently, which could have been why you made such a strong statement.

and one more time: you could prove it in a heartbeat by producing a verifiable language. ;)

And one more time - if God intended it to be proven He would have designed it such. However, there are many things in which He requires a non-scientific leap of faith. The new birth, for example.

Edited October 13, 2012 by chockfull

[chockfull]

Sorry...clicked the wrong thing

It's called a Burden of Proof Fallacy.

OK, while there are logical fallacies, we are really not in the midst of one here. People are sharing their experiences and beliefs. They are different. They believe different things. We have scientific studies of a phenomenon. However, that phenomenon is claimed to be energized by Spirit, which nobody can detect or measure scientifically. Thus it's not a shocker that they are not able to present conclusions on something they can't detect or measure.

Because of this, we need to take care in our language to present things as IMO. If we don't, we quickly get the place of what is called a "Mexican Standoff" where people on each side are demanding proof and there is none to be had.

[Raf]

Impasse

[waysider]

The leap of faith.

Yes, almost anything can be justified with a leap of faith.

That's what Wierwille asked us to take in the Christians Should Have Sex class when he revealed "the original sin" and said, "I can't prove this from the scriptures, you'll just have to take my word on it."

I'm not saying you should never take a leap of faith. I'm just saying this isn't one of those situations that warrants it.

[chockfull]

It's really quite simple. It can be proven that a sample of speaking in tongues is not a language. It cannot be proven that a sample of speaking in tongues is a language. The onus of proof has somehow been reversed in this argument.

No it can't be proven that a sample of SIT is not a language. It can be shown that gibberish is not a language. "Free vocalization" is studied, and there is no conclusion on whether it is language or not definitively. Is "free vocalization" speaking in tongues? That's another thing that cannot be proven or disproven.

There is no onus of proof.

Prove there is a God that you can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch. Same thing.

I'm not saying you should never take a leap of faith. I'm just saying this isn't one of those situations that warrants it.

And we should take a leap of faith and trust you on your judgment that this situation isn't one that warrants it?

Impasse

That's the most accurate thing you've said all morning :B)

[waysider]

Here is how a burden of proof fallacy works:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

[OldSkool]

That's what Wierwille asked us to take in the Christians Should Have Sex class when he revealed "the original sin" and said, "I can't prove this from the scriptures, you'll just have to take my word on it."

There is no comparison between a charlatan like Wierwille asking us to have faith in his BS and an almighty God who asks us to have faith in him that he is true.

[waysider]

There is no comparison between a charlatan like Wierwille asking us to have faith in his BS and an almighty God who asks us to have faith in him that he is true.

While I do see your point, I don't think God ever asked us to have faith that what we called speaking in tongues is genuine.