SIT, TIP, Confession
39 members have voted
-
1. What do you think of the inspirational manifestations/"gifts"?
-
I've done it, they are real and work the way TWI describes14
-
I've done it, they are real and work the way CES/STFI describes1
-
I've done it, they are real and work the way Pentecostals/non-denominationals describe2
-
I faked it to fit in, but I believe they are real.1
-
I faked it to fit in. I believe it's possible, but not sure if it's real.6
-
I faked it. I think we all faked it.15
-
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
713
115
291
409
Popular Days
Oct 18
114
Sep 19
102
Sep 20
93
Oct 28
80
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 713 posts
geisha779 115 posts
waysider 291 posts
chockfull 409 posts
Popular Days
Oct 18 2012
114 posts
Sep 19 2012
102 posts
Sep 20 2012
93 posts
Oct 28 2012
80 posts
Popular Posts
chockfull
Raf very honestly my behavior on this thread earlier caused me to look in the mirror and re-evaluate some things. I also was not pleased with the reflection. I'm thankful for the personal growth tha
geisha779
No? You really kind of are if you demand Raf prove his point....funny how that works. How about any reasonable standard? I have to wonder, as I have inadvertently strung two words together that Freud
Steve Lortz
I believe that SIT is real, but not what it is described as in either Pentecostalism or TWI. I believe that SIT is always thanksgiving (giving proper credit) to God. I believe there were lots of times
Raf
Allan,
I am most certainly not flirting with or interested in becoming a Jehovah's Witness.
Further, I think we have done an excellent job here of approaching SIT on its merits, particularly in terms of whether the practice today is producing what the Bible promises.
If we disagree on what the Bible says SIT will produce, there is nothing to discuss on this thread. I have no evidence that you personally faked anything. I have a belief you did not ask me for.
But it's on the merits. If SIT (modern practice) is what the Bible says it is, shouldn't it
produce what the Bible says it will?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
I'm happy to agree to disagree !! I just thought it was interesting to note the JW thing, because I am involved in a Christian ministry where we do 'lead' people into speaking in tongues and it seems that former JW's are often the ones that have diffuculty 'manifesting' ??!! Also on a side note, interesting that I have had 'gay' people receive the holy spirit( evidenced by s.i.t.ing !! ) any thoughts or comments appreciated as I do enjoy your posts :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It only stands to reason that people who are preconditioned to be anti-SIT (ex-JW) would display reluctance. I think you could attribute that to cultural conditioning. Gay people speaking in tongues? Why not? All kinds of people speak in tongues..... Christians, Jews, Pagans, Shamans, etc.
The (TWI implied) "spiritual implications" of it, on the other hand, might be fodder for a interesting thread but, out of place in this discussion....In my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
That's what I've always thought, of a truth God is not a respecter of persons, so the line goes ! But yep, after being defamed to family & friends ( behind our backs of course, the guy running our country was/is an a grade coward ) and then having a couple of his goons physically assault me outside my house in front of my kids..I coulda got a bit disillusioned...but a love for God, ability to s.i.t. not to mention being personally present when a young relative was prayed over and sat up immediately from a coma shores up my faith for sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i find this topic so boring so i know you will tell me to stay away, but i must have one of those psychological thingies that are in the big book (not the bible) oh well
i speak in tongues -- knew without a doubt i was born again before i ever did -- then i heard all the hoopla later
i thought i had a lot more to say but i forgot it already
jesus christ is the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but by him and it doesn't say sheet about speaking in tongues
love you all
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
It doesn't matter whether it's in the context of doing the after dinner dishes. The context doesn't magically 100% change the meaning of the verse around. Again, for about the 10th time on this point, it really doesn't matter whether or not Paul was mad at the Corinthians, if he was reproving them, if they were bad boys, etc. etc. etc.
What Paul says about SIT is about the only detail we have in the Bible about it. If you go jumping all over hyperbole as a figure of speech saying it means you really shouldn't speak in tongues when the verse says "I would that you all do it", if you interpret where he talks about praying with the spirit and understanding as not applying to the private prayer life because he's talking about praying in church, and if you do all sorts of other antics with Corinthians to support what you've already decided is your position about it, then there really is nothing to discuss here doctrinally either.
Believe what you want. It is absolutely no logical way to approach scriptures, though.
No, the access to God was given to us by Jesus sacrifice making the new birth possible. Gifts / manifestations come along with the new birth. I didn't know questioning SIT would bring you to doubting the whole underpinnings of the new birth. That certainly was not God's intent.
No we are not. I am extemporaneously stringing together concepts directly from verses related to SIT. The verses appear in different parts of your Bible, so it's like an extract from a subject scriptural study on it.
Can I gently remind you that you sound very similar to Bildad the Shuhite here? No duh. Of course this is the case. And part of what God accomplished through Jesus amazing sacrifice was this beautiful gift related to the new birth. You should check it out some time, rather than arguing with God about what its intent is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Yes, Raf. That terminology would put the scientific side of this discussion on par with and accurate with the scientific method and the statistics used as proofs in most of the softer sciences that are related to human studies. And it would probably get us past some of the "logical fallacy" bickering over whose responsibility it is to prove it.
I don't know if it's possible to prove or not for reasons I've highlighted. But if it can be proven, that's the right path to approach it. We could kick around the hypothesis statement to try and ensure it covers all angles or is stated the most accurately.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
It is interesting to note. I have close friends in JW. They are absolutely conditioned to fear SIT. Not just as a matter of doctrine. They literally believe people SIT are possessed, and become visibly agitated when the topic comes up.
On the gay side of things my views on that is that TWI had a whole lot of angst against that group of people, especially in LCM's era. IMO that was because he was cheating on his wife and his wife was leaving him for another woman, but hey. In Biblical times, the Greek culture had a lot of homosexuality in it. The middle-aged men would have relationships with young boys, and gay relationships were part of and acceptable in culture. That didn't change Paul's work or God's direction to bring them to Christ. And to complicate matters, Paul's letters in a short time had to handle all of that and provide direction for new Christians to live as believers and navigate within that part of culture and their past, which I'm sure couldn't be easy. So no surprise to me there.
You are right. Landry was the one quoting Samarin. Not Polythress. Polythress had plenty of his own research sources not related to Samarin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Bringing this up without comment, only to recover what we can of Landry's paper.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Consider for a moment providing reference material?
I'm going to read this and re-read our other sources again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
For the record, my life goals are to make gold valuable and to popularize the use of water for thirst-quenching.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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. :)
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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...
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I like met this guy once who was a scientist kind of dude. He told me extraterrestrials are like real, for sure. He said they did tests and all to prove it and stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Wow, compelling. The "it just is" exegesis, now why didn't I think of that? How is that celibacy thing going for ya? Keeping the little lady silent in the church too?
Tongues can be a prideful gift and that has never been more evident to me as on this thread and through your posts. You have used it as a weapon, something to make you stand out in great faith, you have insulted me by and with it and now, you have questioned my faith because I hold a different view than you do. Wow. Sure, I want to join your club and be just like you....the gentleness, tolerance, and kindness just oozes out of you.
If you were correct and I misguided....the only thing you have done is make darn sure I am going to stay as far far away as possible from people who SIT.
Dogma never saved anyone and taking literally things which were not meant to be taken literally has caused people to vow celibacy in order to be close to God. It has had people self-mutilate, it has subjugated women, and it has launched many into the bondage of religion. I think I will pass. Just look what SIT has done for you.
Now I remember why I didn't ask these questions in TWI. It is all coming back to me....I would have been met with mocking derision, had my faith (believing) challenged, sneered at, had my emotional stability questioned, I would have been told I was full of anger.....and then the cherry on the top would have been the "It just is" answer. I bet anything you were clergy in TWI.
How your leaving Jesus Christ out of your little soliloquy of tongues makes me less is beyond me....oh wait, it is because I hold a different perspective of scripture than you.....that must be it? How far we have traveled.
You couldn't just calmly and unemotionally consider or discuss it with me without getting so angry or personal? What do you think would have happened?
Edited for Allan. :)
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
I will definitely look into this 'free vocalization' thing. My initial cynicism of course lends me to think how convenient for satan to come up with a brush aside label like that...hmmnnn. I still haven't had anything scientific or biblical to debunk the number of reasons and benefits for s.i.t. It's a bit like the blind man; "As for this Jesus I'm not sure, but one thing I know. Whereas before I was blind, NOW I see " ! I'm like that with the tongues, couldn't do it before getting saved, NOW I can :) BTW, I don't believe I myself nor a number of genuinely, sincere fellow Christians I hang with, have ever done it out of a prideful heart or mindset, so, again, to make a general sweeping statement like that is not very fair. BTW ( also ) I was brought up JW just to throw a little spanner in the works.
Link to comment
Share on other sites