SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

It need not be a slippery slope is what I'm saying.

Slippery slope is another logical fallacy.

[Ham]

People SIT on TBN all the time, we have it on You tube.....SIT if consistent with scripture should produce a real language, so what is the problem? Someone, somewhere, should recognize them all basically. I don't understand why this is not happening all over the place and the norm. What is the big mystery? Unless it is not real?

If you can't speak in tongues....look this guy will help you to do it. I dare you to watch it.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eFUz1Ve7WeE" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

is that his real hair (rightly divided) or something.. it does not look the same color as the hair on the sides..

in fact it looks like a pair of wings..

[excathedra]

this malafruckashintabullsheetacrapola thread is still alive?

Edited October 21, 2012 by excathedra

[Raf]

Yes, but a certain other never-dying thread hasn't been heard from in years, so...

[Kit Sober]

RE: The poll. I really only know how twi teaches because they had one doctrine and it was pretty good. I am now questioning the complete "your operation of the " and whereby "you ..." because it's all so self centered, when the Holy Spirit is involved it's not so pragmatic and five senses directed. There is a flow of the Holy Spirit that makes all things work together for good in a service. Also the Charismatic/Pentecostal "movement" has been growing and flowing with the Holy Spirit into a greater flow in and with this river of living water. I put "twi" for my vote, but probably should have put the charismatic one because that's where I have been found for the last 18 years since being cast out of twi..

Making stuff up: I didn't make stuff up. I loved the excellors sessions and believed every word -- but then Del Duncan was often over stuff, Michxxl Mart!n (the one from Alameda), Kevin Pxrter, Bill Schlex, Howard and Jane Yerem!an and their family, so many wonderful people and times of learning how to walk in and with the Holy Spirit.

When/if it I had a thought to "make something up" it never got to first base because I would be scared sh!tle$ to do so. I always trusted the leader would only call on me by the Holy Spirit and if he/she did so, I would have a manifestation from the Lord in response to that call.

One of the precious things reminders were the trucks with the orange and black "TIP" logo that roll the highways, and I was sure they were to remind us to speak in Tongues, Interepret, and Propfhesy whenever the opportunity presented itself. I just saw one last week and it was really nice.

This thread looks to me as an example of, "Those who say God can and those who say God can't are both right."

Now I am totally deaf so I can't hear anything, including TIP, but God in his mercy has arranged it so one of the ministries that thoroughly believe in the manifestations of the spirit have a precious individual who transcribes the services and emails me them. It's almost like being there. (I know that every day I am one day closer to being able to hear, one way or another because I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are no deaf people or people missing any body parts or having any diseases in heaven.)

Edited October 21, 2012 by Kit Sober

[chockfull]

Sorry to be so blunt, but constantly bringing up doubts about the resurrection or the new birth or the existence of God is just another logical fallacy that stops people from engaging in self reflection for fear that it will get them to question God and Christ himself (or themselves: pick the theology you hold. Doesn't matter for the purpose of this discussion).

No, bringing up logical conclusions about other spiritual matters to highlight the difficulties in PROVING spiritual matters is simple common sense. It is not fear mongering or any other label you want to attach to it. You are trying to prove something that cannot be detected by your 5 senses - spiritual energizing.

You want to focus on all of the 5 senses aspects about SIT. That's your choice, and if you want to become afraid because you do this about SIT that it will transfer over into other areas of your faith that's your business and your problem.

But it is not the problem of someone pointing out that spiritual gifts are spiritual in nature. It almost amazes me that I have to keep highlighting basic elemental things like this.

[chockfull]

Ok, look, last time I'm going to say this. The first person accounts of people who claim to have been abducted by UFOs vastly outnumbers those who claim a true blue SIT "I heard someone else who heard someone else and recognized the language and understood it in my presence" experience. If their sincerity requires that I believe them, and they have no burden to prove their claims, then I have no more reason to reject the UFO abductions as I have to reject the fantastical tongues claims.

To argue about the numbers of UFO abductions reported in conjunction with this discussion is completely irrelevant. Here's the problem. First, it's an ad hominem attack, as you are placing a correlation between people reporting UFO abductions and tongues simply for the purpose that it's widely accepted that those reporting UFO abductions are commonly viewed as crackpots and you are drawing a parallel there. Second, you provide no substantiating evidence there are more claims of UFO sightings. Third, we are discussing spiritual matters to do with God and the gift/manifestations, not UFO's.

This is very, very tired logic. It's tedious to deal with, but I'm going to do so because outside of me there is nobody challenging it.

I reject them both on the same basis. If that bothers you on a faith level, I'm sorry. It shouldn't. There are oodles of Christians who are unsatisfied with the used car salesman "you're just gonna hafta trust me on this: looks, feels, sounds and produces the same result as a phony, but take my word for it; it's real" con job posited by the modern SIT movement.

Honestly, your arguments would have more weight with me if they were logical, thought through, and dealing with the facts at hand, as opposed to labeling, and constantly stating your opinion on the matter. Does it bother me you are doing this? Not at all - it's not my life or logical choices.

I have NEVER asked anyone on this thread to take my word for it that it is real. I am simply digging into information we have and presenting logic regarding the information. You, on the other hand, state over and over your opinion as fact.

In reality, you sound far more like the used car salesman here.

This doesn't even compare to the resurrection or the new birth. The Bible describes something specific and clear. Modern SIT twists and distorts the obvious meaning of the text for the sole purpose of covering up the fact that it doesn't produce what the Bible says it should.

Of course the spiritual matter of SIT compares to the resurrection and the new birth - in that they are ALL SPIRITUAL MATTERS. As spiritual matters, there are elements of them that cannot be detected by the 5 senses. But in your viewpoint, you really want to get away from looking at SIT as a spiritual matter. You want to look at it as a senses experience where everyone is faking it. It is your viewpoint that has the flaw, not the SIT we are studying.

At the very least, if we can return to the original point of this thread, fakery was widespread, and anyone who did fake it should know that it's liberating to come clean. You may have fooled quite a few people, but you never fooled to one who mattered most.

I would that ye all came clean.

This I support you in. All of those people who were / are acting like that John Lynn video, whose life is a fake, all of those people that made something up to please somebody in TWI - they are wrong. It will help them to admit they were faking. But to those that have that doubt enter in, just because you doubt your experience in TWI because of the putrid fruit that has shown itself in the leadership of TWI, because of the Nazi-like excellor sessions and man's manipulation presented in the intermediate class, or because of other reasons connected with the cult, that does not mean you faked it. So search the scriptures, search your own soul, pray a lot, and look for God's direction.

[Raf]

Once you make an empirical claim, which SIT is, you forfeit the right to hide behind faith as an excuse for why the empirical claim does not produce what it claims to produce.

I do not believe I am the one doing the fearmongering here. I say you can reject modern SIT and continue to embrace Christ. You're implying that once you do, you open the door to rejecting Christ, the new birth, the resurrection and God. Yet millions of Christians reject SIT while embracing Christ. All I'm saying.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

Which is why I previously said.......You can take God completely out of the picture and still test to see if genuine languages are being produced. It doesn't have to include any sort of "spiritual" aspect whatsoever...

And if you do this, I propose that you are no longer investigating SIT. You are investigating another phenomenon - that of a human to make mouth noises. You are investigating people faking SIT or doing something else altogether.

[Raf]

I promised my last post on the UFO comparison would BE my last post on that comparison, and i shall stick to my word.

[chockfull]

Once you make an empirical claim, which SIT is, you forfeit the right to hide behind faith as an excuse for why the empirical claim does not produce what it claims to produce.

Where did you get the convoluted notion that SIT was some kind of "empirical claim"?????

I do not believe I am the one doing the fearmongering here. I say you can reject modern SIT and continue to embrace Christ. You're implying that once you do, you open the door to rejecting Christ, the new birth, the resurrection and God. Yet millions of Christians reject SIT while embracing Christ. All I'm saying.

I am not saying that if you reject modern SIT you can't embrace Christ. I've seen plenty of real life examples where people do exactly that and have a strong Christian life.

[Raf]

Seriously? If SIT is not an empirical claim, nothing is. Please. I've been saying this all along.

If Biblical SIT is not an empirical claim, why are we looking at studies for evidence of languages?

[chockfull]

Seriously? If SIT is not an empirical claim, nothing is. Please. I've been saying this all along.

empirical -

adjective

1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.

3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment

Which definition are you trying to tie to SIT?

If Biblical SIT is not an empirical claim, why are we looking at studies for evidence of languages?

I guess if you mean #3 definition - we are investigating the topic to see the extent of which there can be found empirical evidence related to SIT.

[Raf]

Correct. Glad you found it for yourself rather than stopping at def. 2 and declaring all empirical research to be my opinion.

[WordWolf]

I know chockfull keeps insisting that 2 posters comments make up some sort of "proof",

at least to his satisfaction.

(BTW, chockfull, I'd like to think you're right, but I haven't seen a decent case for it,

and the case for the other side seems pretty strong.)

Which 2 posters does this refer to? IIRC, one was Socks. Does anyone have a link to the

posts where their stories took place? I'd like to go over them myself and see if I'd

find their accounts constituting "proof" or not.

[Raf]

Tom in Doctrinal. I link to it in the reading room.

Anyone know how to get a crying baby to sleep?

[chockfull]

I know chockfull keeps insisting that 2 posters comments make up some sort of "proof",

at least to his satisfaction.

(BTW, chockfull, I'd like to think you're right, but I haven't seen a decent case for it,

and the case for the other side seems pretty strong.)

Which 2 posters does this refer to? IIRC, one was Socks. Does anyone have a link to the

posts where their stories took place? I'd like to go over them myself and see if I'd

find their accounts constituting "proof" or not.

Post #587 on this page is Socks story - and he answers once about after.

Tom in Doctrinal. I link to it in the reading room.

Anyone know how to get a crying baby to sleep?

I'm sure you've ruled out the normal causes. Teething could be another. We had one with colic, nothing worked with that one except putting him in a car seat and driving him around...

[Raf]

And if you do this, I propose that you are no longer investigating SIT. You are investigating another phenomenon - that of a human to make mouth noises. You are investigating people faking SIT or doing something else altogether.

When it comes to the studies, I believe that is all we have been doing in the first place, which is why I find it so amusing/frustrating that we're poring over it to look for how closely it resembles language. Ink on a counterfeit bill. If I'm right, every subject is faking it. If you're right, God is not energizing it and therefore everyone is faking it.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

Soooooo (flogging the equine yet one more time).....If it's holy spirit doing the energizing when Christians speak in tongues, what is it doing the energizing when Non-Christians speak in tongues? I propose it's the innate human ability to operate free vocalization.

[Raf]

The notion that God is not cooperating may explain why linguists don't find a language, but it bolsters my argument in another, objective way. I've indicated it before, but let's get explicit about it.

If God is not cooperating, then:

1. Everyone who participated, lied DURING the time observed by the experiment

2. Did not appear to realize they were lying, which teaches us that

3. There is no way for even the person SITting to tell fakery from the real thing as an experience.

In effect, this would prove that it's possible to fake SIT without knowing it. We establish that the sincerity of the person claiming the experience is insufficient to establish that the experience is genuine.

If God IS cooperating, we should see languages. We don't.

So whether or not God cooperates, my position appears bolstered.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Raf

[geisha779]

. . . . .

This thread looks to me as an example of, "Those who say God can and those who say God can't are both right."

. . . . .

Who is saying that God can't.. . . how would that be right? Our God is in heaven He does whatever He pleases.

I know it is a long and sometimes technical thread, but generally, people are not questioning God's authority or power. What is being challenged is what people are calling SIT now opposed to what they did in scripture.

[WordWolf]

Thanks, both of you. I'll give them some respectful attention ASAP.

Tom in Doctrinal. I link to it in the reading room.

Anyone know how to get a crying baby to sleep?

Here's what I've got.

A) Buy a bag or box of earplugs.

B) Try to develop a routine eventually so the kid gets a sense of when to sleep.

C) Movement seems to help, so pacing with the kid often works.

D) If it's colic, simethicone is the only thing that will help. Dr will advise about a few

drops in the formula or milk across the day/night.

E) I've heard driving around is helpful for that. Walking a carriage is hrlpful.

F) Of course, check for clean diaper, thirst, etc.

G) If all else fails, you have to wait it out. Keep the earplugs in and try to entertain

yourself. The kid may actually cry for a while, take a breath to cry more, then suddenly

fall asleep while inhaling. (It's like a sitcom when that happens.)

[WordWolf]

Who is saying that God can't.. . . how would that be right? Our God is in heaven He does whatever He pleases.

I know it is a long and sometimes technical thread, but generally, people are not questioning God's authority or power. What is being challenged is what people are calling SIT now opposed to what they did in scripture.

A point that can be missed is that people who insist twi had it correct

seem to be the ones saying that to question SIT IN THE TWI STYLE

is to question the Bible, Jesus Christ, etc,

and everyone else is saying it's a separate doctrine that has no bearing

on the salvation of billions of Christians in history and the present.

Whether or not there is real SIT, the assertion is that the twi style itself

was education in, and practice of, how to COUNTERFEIT the actual experience of

SIT, with social reinforcement filling in the gaps.

(We all wanted to SIT, we were told it was fantastic, we were told this is how

it's done, all our friends wanted us to SIT, we wanted to SIT, so when we

put the twi counterfeit into practice, we were eager to believe it was the

genuine and not the counterfeit, and our friends believed the same.)

Whether or not that's true, the evidence points that way.

All of that's a separate question of "Is there real SIT today that's not the

same as twi style" and "Is the Bible correct" and so on.

Those are matters for Doctrinal and best left there. I hope to chat about it with

the gang here later when there's time.The "real SIT" part, not the other part.)

[waysider]

We had great success with a motion simulator. It's a little vibrating motor that fits up under the crib. Our pediatrician used to lend them out. I'm sure there's probably a "new and improved" version out there somewhere.

[Raf]

Nicely put, WW, although Chockfull has cause to dispute your analysis of the situation as applied to HIS experience. Nonetheless, you reach the correct destination.

It is indeed fairly easy to break my hypothesis into segments and investigate it a piece at a time. Am I justified in throwing all SIT under the bus. Would I be justified if I exempted Pentecostal or other Christian groups from the accusation of fakery? Would it be justifiable if I only exempted TWI, CES, or some other group's practice? Or am I 100% wrong, and the only thing I can prove is that some people do indeed fake it.

The premise of this thread is multilayered. It assumes there was fakery, perhaps even lots of it. I don't think anyone is arguing that point. But the poll question opens a lot of layers. All but one of the responses can be seen as a hypothesis that is subject to testing. The first, second and third have, to my satisfaction, all been disproved (which is not to say that all SIT is false, but only that if we assume it is true, it's fairly plain no one seems to have a very firm grasp on it that stands up to analysis. Best we can say is SIT is possible.

The final response not only has not been proved, but cannot be. It is, in my opinion, the most in line with the observable evidence. There is a Biblical proposition that fits what the evidence shows us, but there seems to be little willingness on anyone's part to entertain that Biblical interpretation.

(But I'm the proud one).

Edited October 21, 2012 by Raf