SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

Yes, demonstrating a knowledge of English is a whole lot more involved than just speaking it. For example, a non-English speaker could memorize the Gettysburg address and recite it word for word without demonstrating that they have a knowledge of English. This happens worldwide with music all over the place. Bands playing concerts in places that don't speak their language experience that the audience can sing along to their songs.

I missed this earlier. It deserves a response.

A person reciting the Gettysburg Address in English, with no other knowledge of English, would attract some attention. Someone would be demanding to know how they learned the Gettysburg Address in perfect English. And the investigation into how this person was able to demonstrate knowledge of the Gettysburg Address (by speaking it) would be compelled to explain how it happened. And presumably, for your hypothesis, that person would be able to explain, in his own language, how he came to learn the Gettysburg Address in a language he did not speak.

No one in his right mind would conclude, on the basis of the speaker's lack of understanding of what he had spoken, he therefore did not recite the Gettysburg Address, nor that he had done so in English.

But the actual speaking of the Gettysburg Address is a demonstration of the knowledge of English. It turns out that the knowledge itself is quite superficial, being merely phonetic rather than truly comprehensive. But impressive nonetheless. Nothing supernatural about it, right?

This is exactly the point I'm making. If someone spoke in a foreign language before a linguist looking for foreign linguistic content in a sample of SIT, and the linguist actually detected a foreign language, he would want to know how the person acquired such knowledge. He may later determine that person's knowledge to be completely superficial in the linguistic sense, but he would not deny that it's a language.

A person who speaks in tongues and produces a foreign language has demonstrated knowledge of that language. A linguist could determine only the depth of that knowledge and quickly ascertain that the person's knowledge of that language was indeed quite shallow, consisting purely of the sounds emitted and conveying none of the understanding. This would be remarkable, but what happens next is outside the scope of the linguist's expertise. Ask the linguist what just happened, and he'll say "That person just spoke in a foreign language he has never learned. Remarkable."

How? Linguist, as a linguist, doesn't care. Refers the case to some other expert: a psychologist who can dig deeper to discover if the person had some exposure to the language he can't remember. A Biblical researcher to determine whether the content of the message lines up with the Bible to determine if this was really energized by God. Shirley MacLaine to determine if he was her king and she his queen in a past life. SOMEthing happened. What was it?

And what has happened in every case of confirmed production of SIT in a genuine foreign language?

Trick question. There are no such cases.

Well, except in Amazing Anecdotes issue 432, right next to the Sasquatch sighting and The Autobiography of Whitley Streiber.

I have already answered every single point you made in your last post and will not bore our readers by repeating myself, Chockfull. Your appeal to the ineptitude of the linguists who have taken the time to study this phenomenon is duly noted.

But this one...

LOL! So back to your fictional example, if you were SIT in understandable Swahili to Samarin, where do you think on the ACTFL language proficiency scale that would put your knowledge of Swahili? Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, or Superior?

Is "superficial, surface-only" on the list? If I were genuinely speaking in tongues, that is surely what it would be. Maybe not even that much. At least your Gettysburg Address guy knew the phonetics and could repeat it on demand. A SITter wouldn't even be able to do that. So I suppose the ACTFL scale would be worthless to this endeavor. Which is why I'm not clicking on it.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

And what has happened in every case of confirmed production of SIT in a genuine foreign language?

In the accounts I read of this people were amazed and gave the glory to God. And remembered it decades later. And it was confirmed by everyone in the room.

Oh, you mean "confirmed in a lab"???

The only thing confirmed in a lab is experiments on mice.

Edited October 24, 2012 by chockfull

[Raf]

The cases you refer to were alleged, not confirmed. Nice try, though.

And while I have no doubt everyone in the room WOULD confirm it if given the opportunity, we have no idea whether they have actually done so. Did you talk to everyone who was in the room with Socks or Tom? Neither did I. So "confirmed by everyone in the room" is, at best, second hand.

***

I'll edit this post instead of writing a new one.

Chockfull has repeatedly been using the word "xenoglossolalia" and defining it as interchangeable with "xenoglossia." That is a mistake, as I'm sure he'll realize. Xenoglossia, as he understands it (and I don't think he's wrong) technically refers to a claim of actual knowledge of a foreign language. The use of the "lalia" suffix would undercut that definition, so it is surely not what Chockfull means to be saying. In fact, I would propose that xenoglossolalia and glossolalia are interchangeable terms.

I still think speaking a foreign language while SITting, in practical terms, would initially be treated the same as a case of xenoglossia.

But considering that this is all hypothetical and neither has actually happened (modern setting) , it's kind of moot.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

Fifty nine pages in and still no explanation of how Non-Christians are able to speak in tongues or why the practice predates Christ by a thousand years. Unless, of course, the answer lies in Man's innate ability to perform free vocalization. Could it really be that simple? I, for one, think so.

[Raf]

So do I. But I don't think that's even in dispute.

What's in dispute is whether free vocalization accounts for ALL modern SIT. The testable evidence that we have reviewed certainly appears to validate such a proposition, but it suffers the insurmountable problem of inadequate sample size, not to mention the untestable evidence and the untestable proposition that the God who energizes SIT may not wish to cooperate with a dispassionate validation process.

The non-cooperation of God raises the difficult matter of exposing the fact that a sincere Christian can SIT and fake it and not know it, eliminating the sincerity of the speaker as any proof that his claim is ever true. But that doesn't seem to be bothering anyone.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Raf

[Pete]

I'd like to but back in here, if I may.

Firstly, a big thank you to Chockfull for supporting me on my previous post which included the "Anyone could tell that this was a language" line.

On reflection, I have to concede that this comes across as inflamatory, and it wasn't itended to be so in this particular case.

Maybe I should have just stated that it "sounded like a language to me at the time".

If I concede that particular line, perhaps Raf can concede that his line stating that he is presenting the side of "Proof" versus "Anecdotes" is inflamatory and rephrase or withdraw it. But I'm not going to twist your arm too far - it's up to you.

Now Karl is reported to have stated that he SIT when he wasn't born again. I always approach such testimonies with caution. I accept that Karl may well be sincere in his statement, but does he know absolutely for sure that he didn't already have the spirit within? No, that is not possible. In fact, because he did SIT indicates to me that he did have the spirit. Perhaps his testimony should be considered as anecdotal, rather than proof.

However, as has been pointed out already, this is leading to circular arguments that cannot be resolved.

I want to throw something new into the mix:

SIT is the EXTERNAL manifestation. It does not show you what the spirit is doing WITHIN.

It does give you an indication that the spirit is being operated. However, what you speak is not necessarily a word for word reflection of what the spirit is doing within. What the spirit is doing within is not seen. It is "groanings that cannot be uttered" or "groans that are not spoken" in the Aramaic. So if your words appear to be similar when you operate the spirit, this does not detract from what the spirit is doing within. The spirit does the groaning to God on our behalf when things are going wrong.

That is my hypothesis, and it is open to debate.

And, although tongues may be diluted by unbelief or simulation in the operator, this wouldn't then detract from the operation of the spirit within, which is perfect. You may still be operating the power of the holy spirit within, even though you have doubted yourself what you have spoken, because the operation of the spirit is not spoken.

Likewise, for interpretation and prophecy, just because the person speaking influences what is being said, this doesn't negate the perfect operation of the spirit within.

Now I wonder to myself, when Peter heard people SIT, he declared that they had received the spirit. Peter was a fisherman by upbringing, not a linguist. He didn't see the need to take take their words away and analyze them. What could be so different from hearing tongues today? I'm asking myself that question. Why bother having linguists investigate the potentially badly operated external manifestation when we know that the internal actions of the holy spirit are not only perfect but also impenetrable?

And if it is proven that tongues are being operated by someone that is not born again (which would be difficult if not impossible to do), perhaps we should consider that this is still the operation of "spirit", just not God's holy spirit. That's another one to throw into the mix.

[OldSkool]

That's another one to throw into the mix.

Actions taken by Oldschool: ....reads Pete's post...thinks for a minute....promptly braces himself for 60 more pages of circles...

Edited October 25, 2012 by OldSkool

[Raf]

Actions taken by Oldschool: ....reads Pete's post...thinks for a minute....promptly braces himself for 60 more pages of circles...

I have 25 posts per page, so it's only 48 pages for me.

[Raf]

Sheesh, where to begin?

First, casual reading: it appears you would rather believe that we faked faking it than that we actually faked it. That's... I don't even know what to call that.

So let me be clear: I do not doubt that I spoke in tongues. I know I did not. I know I faked it and I know how. True, it wasn't until going through the process of dialogue on this thread that I realized that there were fancy words for what I did, but I was rather obviously defining the process of free vocalization before I ever heard the term and saw its application to the subject we are considering.

Much of what Pete says is simply impossible to argue because he has, in effect, made everything about SIT, including confessed fakery, untestable.

I honestly don't know if I should, or even CAN, answer him point for point.

But no, I do not apologize for calling Socks' and Tom's accounts anecdotal evidence insufficient as objective proof of anything. They did not present it as such. They did not ask me to take it as such. And with good reason. That they believe these accounts is a testament to their sincerity. It is no guarantee of the veracity of the stories they tell.

I feel for you if that offends you. But you are asking too much of me at this point to rephrase or withdraw it. If you would like to come up with an alternative wording that you think might be acceptable to both of us, I will gladly consider it.

Let me add that I have kind of already refined the way I refer to my side of things. In the post right above yours, I wrote:

What's in dispute is whether free vocalization accounts for ALL modern SIT. The testable evidence that we have reviewed certainly appears to validate such a proposition, but it suffers the insurmountable problem of inadequate sample size [less than 100%], not to mention the untestable evidence [anecdotal accounts, all examples of SIT that were NOT subject to testing] and the untestable proposition that the God who energizes SIT may not wish to cooperate with a dispassionate validation process.

I think that's as humble a way to put it as I can come up with.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Raf

[OldSkool]

I have 25 posts per page, so it's only 48 pages for me.

[socks]

Something I started to put in an earlier post and never posted relates to something you state Pete, the flip side -

Over the years I met quite a few people in the Way who were NOT what I'd call "born again", biblically or otherwise.

I don't mean that as a blanket statement because of how this or that and wrong and bad and nasty and cultish or whatever - that The Way is considered to have been and be.

Rather that the people weren't clear on their belief and confession of Jesus Christ as savior, redeemer and primary arbiter of salvation. Some folks "got into the Way" via the PFAL class, and took as a kind of self help/positive thinking class. The idea that it was taught from the bible and revolved around Jesus Christ got muddied up with the intense promotion of "The Word of God" as that which a person must cleave to, follow, accept, treasure and learn.

The "logos" was actually taught in PFAL but if you just focused on the Written Word part of that as the end result of your effort, you might not in fact ever actually accept Jesus Christ as taught from the Bible.

VPW did in fact cover salvation in PFAL but because of the scheduling and bums-rush treatment of hurrying through to the end of the material - sessions 9 - 12 - you could actually not "get born again" or accept Christ as they say and not have the personal committment and confession to God and Jesus Christ - with no time to stop -

Rather someone might have a general agreement, a "that's cool" kind of attitude, and complete the class but not have really gone deep on it. Let's face it, the earlier schedules were loose but as time went on the PFAL in 2 weeks schedule was not a good way to do it.

So if you didn't, you would still end up in Session 12 getting "encouraged" to speak in tongues. I know a lot of people who simply weren't ready at that point and as a class instructor I wouldn't put a big do-or-die challenge out to people, rather I expected follow up. (I probably facilitated dunno, over 30 PFAL classes at least, taught some sessions live myself and did my own small versions of the sessions many times over the years, piecemeal style)

There were people in the Way who had a very flat, one dimensionsal view and understanding of Jesus Christ and salvation. LCM got that way, his whole global view of Christianity seemed - to me - to be paper thin.

This could account for the confusion and also for how and why people went along with it and never really engaged.

I hesitated to post this - and by my experience it's 100 per cent true and something I struggled with my last few years in the Way with some of the people - because it isn't meant to be a blanket dismissal or explanation and definitely isn't meant to apply specifically to Raf, geisha or others here. It does cover some ground about the Way though - The Way didn't like to admit it but it attracted the same kinds of social "members" as any church would, people who's participation was family driven, social or business reasons, personal, etc. etc. etc.

[Raf]

Socks, in the dozens of pages that have transpired since you last posted on this thread, you may have missed the part where I apologized to you for being placed in a position where I felt I had to pass judgment on the account you gave. I never intended to do that, you never asked me to accept the account, and I would rather have just let my last word to you be my last word on the subject at all. I found it distasteful to talk skeptically about the story "behind your back." I know my opinion about the story can't surprise you in the least. Nonetheless, I feel an apology is in order, and I offer it.

[Raf]

Now I wonder to myself, when Peter heard people SIT, he declared that they had received the spirit. Peter was a fisherman by upbringing, not a linguist. He didn't see the need to take take their words away and analyze them. What could be so different from hearing tongues today? I'm asking myself that question. Why bother having linguists investigate the potentially badly operated external manifestation when we know that the internal actions of the holy spirit are not only perfect but also impenetrable?

And if it is proven that tongues are being operated by someone that is not born again (which would be difficult if not impossible to do), perhaps we should consider that this is still the operation of "spirit", just not God's holy spirit. That's another one to throw into the mix.

Two points I can address.

First, I am not seeking to cast doubt on the Biblical accounts of SIT. Just the modern. From a Biblical perspective, I have to assume that Peter knew what he heard, and it is consistent with the Bible, especially given the revelation that got Peter to Cornelius' house in the first place, that the veracity of what they did was validated by God Himself. I have no Biblical basis to challenge that, nor did I ever intend to imply such.

I do have a Biblical basis to challenge modern SIT. I have stated this basis enough to fill 48 pages. Or 60. Depends on who's counting. If you disagree with my basis, then that's a different discussion best left to the doctrinal section. But the notion that I'm wrong about Biblical SIT has not been explored on this thread in any depth. I suspect, in the end, it will be the required position of those who disagree with me, and I concede that I will have no rational, mutually agreed-upon basis on which to argue that point. The best I'll have is: God would that you all engaged in free vocalization and produced a non-language the same as any non-Christian can do. What's so special about that?

On your second issue: You're assuming SIT is a valid spiritual experience and you are failing to consider free vocalization (an innate, human ability with no spiritual implications whatsoever) as a rational alternative. Failing to consider free vocalization leaves you with only two options: SIT is energized by God, or SIT is energized by another (let's presume "evil") spirit. I contend there's no spirit involved in any case, but CERTAINLY no spirit involved in cases where it's not energized by God. My opinion is, of course, as untestable as yours. It only has the benefit of being rational.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Raf

[Ham]

Why can't free vocalization be a genuine spiritual experience? It's just not limited to the christian culture..

even logically framed, human language kind of vocalization.. isn't this a damned MIRACLE in the big, bad cosmos?

maybe only one of the victoids quotes makes maybe half a sense to me.. "human behavior is spiritual.." but he probably stole that from some source somewhere as well as most of the rest of his material..

[geisha779]

I want to throw something new into the mix:

SIT is the EXTERNAL manifestation. It does not show you what the spirit is doing WITHIN.

It does give you an indication that the spirit is being operated. However, what you speak is not necessarily a word for word reflection of what the spirit is doing within. What the spirit is doing within is not seen. It is "groanings that cannot be uttered" or "groans that are not spoken" in the Aramaic. So if your words appear to be similar when you operate the spirit, this does not detract from what the spirit is doing within. The spirit does the groaning to God on our behalf when things are going wrong.

That is my hypothesis, and it is open to debate.

And, although tongues may be diluted by unbelief or simulation in the operator, this wouldn't then detract from the operation of the spirit within, which is perfect. You may still be operating the power of the holy spirit within, even though you have doubted yourself what you have spoken, because the operation of the spirit is not spoken.

Likewise, for interpretation and prophecy, just because the person speaking influences what is being said, this doesn't negate the perfect operation of the spirit within.

. . . . . . . . . .

And if it is proven that tongues are being operated by someone that is not born again (which would be difficult if not impossible to do), perhaps we should consider that this is still the operation of "spirit", just not God's holy spirit. That's another one to throw into the mix.

We may have been exposed to some questionable pneumatology.

"It is the manifestation in the senses realm, of the internal reality of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, God's Spirit teaches His creation in you, which is now your spirit, your spirit teaches your mind and it becomes manifested in the senses realm as you act."

I remember how we got there from scripture....but, I no longer deny the person of the Holy Spirit. I believe the Holy Spirit is God. I believe there is one Spirit, not my own break away created piece. We are probably too far apart on the Holy Spirit to see the same things.

When reading your post, operating God at my discretion and will becomes problematic. Operating God in any externally flawed manner becomes more of a problem. If it is God, I am subject to Him, not He to me.

It is interesting to consider, the unforgivable sin in scripture centers around blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Attributing God's power to Satan. I am not sure we can commit this now, it may be specific, yet, it does clue us in to how sacred we are to understand the Holy Spirit.

Something I never asked myself in TWI is....without the sign of SIT would I recognize the Holy Spirit in my life?

There was so much talk in TWI about God vs. devil spirits....if it wasn't one it had to be the other. As an advanced class grad.... I was supposedly trained to be discerning. Maybe all that did was keep me from truly considering I had just gotten it very wrong. Maybe, all the emphasis placed on SIT and my operating Him was what actually kept me from hearing the Holy Spirit.

Edited to be less doctrinal.

Edited October 26, 2012 by geisha779

[Raf]

Sure, Ham. And learning a language in the first place is a miracle. And walking. And getting a hankie out in time to block the effect of a sneeze. And reaching around the back of your head to touch your right ear with your left hand.

The difference between free vocalization and Biblical SIT is the difference between waking a sleeping man and waking a dead one. One is a perfectly natural thing anyone can do. The other is a profound demonstration of the power of God.

I just don't see how doing something anyone can do equals a manifestation of the presence of God in Christ in you.

It ain't a miracle if anyone can do it, with or without God.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

Still trying to figure out if I can address Pete's post point for point. I've already done a few. This post represents my best effort to handle the rest.

I'd like to but back in here, if I may.

Firstly, a big thank you to Chockfull for supporting me on my previous post which included the "Anyone could tell that this was a language" line.

On reflection, I have to concede that this comes across as inflamatory, and it wasn't itended to be so in this particular case.

Maybe I should have just stated that it "sounded like a language to me at the time".

Not inflammatory. Just subject to challenge. It is rather impossible to argue against the second phrasing. I mean "anyone could tell this is a language" is quite the assertion. With just as much evidence, I could have said "anyone can tell that this is made up linguistic nonsense." It's an assertion. But "sounded like a language to me" is dead on accurate. It did sound like a language to you. And probably to a lot of people. How else could I fake it so long and no one notice or call me out?

***

Now Karl is reported to have stated that he SIT when he wasn't born again. I always approach such testimonies with caution. I accept that Karl may well be sincere in his statement, but does he know absolutely for sure that he didn't already have the spirit within? No, that is not possible. In fact, because he did SIT indicates to me that he did have the spirit. Perhaps his testimony should be considered as anecdotal, rather than proof.

However, as has been pointed out already, this is leading to circular arguments that cannot be resolved.

Listen, Karl is the best witness to testify as to whether he ever believed in the resurrection. "Maybe he did once and forgot" is baseless speculation, and it turns the Bible's insistence on a committed confession and submission to the lordship of Christ into a booby trap that anyone can trip without ever being serious about being a Christian.

I think you missed an important aspect of this discussion. Karl faked it. I faked it. The assertion that Karl spoke in tongues without being born again was a response to the statement someone made that he could not speak in tongues before he was born again but could afterward. I exposed that as faulty reasoning on two fronts: one, the person in question, in all likelihood, never TRIED to speak in tongues before he was born again (why would he?) or was never instructed in how to do so. Second, Karl spoke in tongues, presumably surrounded by spirit-filled Christians, some of whom were Advanced Class grads, none of whom were notified by God that he was faking it. Faking it. Not really speaking in tongues. Karl faked it. The idea that you cannot speak in tongues if you're not born again is undercut, in my opinion, by the fact that modern SIT is nothing more than free vocalization masquerading as Biblical SIT. And ANYONE can free vocalize. Karl never spoke in tongues. I never spoke in tongues. The heart of this thread is a challenge to the assertion that ANYONE has. I have yet to be convinced that anyone has done anything other than free vocalization.

Yes, this rejects the "firsthand" testimony of Socks and Tom, which I contend (and Socks explicitly said) is really secondhand. You may cling to those anecdotes as proof. I can't stop you. I contend we have not nearly enough information to accept them. We don't even know who the people involved are! But we do know that TWI was just RIDDLED with people who were eager to impress each other with their spiritual acumen. I wouldn't put a faked "lack of knowledge of a language" or "understanding of what was spoken in a tongue" past anyone without knowing more about who they were. After all, on this thread alone, half the people who've responded admit faking tongues, and all but a few have admitted faking interpretation and prophecy, at least sometimes. So the eyewitness testimony of what someone ELSE claimed happened, for real, honest... Interesting. Worthy of consideration. But far, far from proof.

I want to throw something new into the mix:

SIT is the EXTERNAL manifestation. It does not show you what the spirit is doing WITHIN.

By definition, a manifestation is an outward display of what's done within. Not sure what you're getting at, really. Let's see...

It does give you an indication that the spirit is being operated. However, what you speak is not necessarily a word for word reflection of what the spirit is doing within. What the spirit is doing within is not seen.

Then it's not a manifestation.

It is "groanings that cannot be uttered" or "groans that are not spoken" in the Aramaic. So if your words appear to be similar when you operate the spirit, this does not detract from what the spirit is doing within. The spirit does the groaning to God on our behalf when things are going wrong.

Forgive me, and I regret being this blunt, but I don't see a coherent thought here. You seem to be suggesting that when done right, Speaking in Tongues (which are languages) will produce something that's not a language.

Not to invoke a Wierwillism, but I submit you are taking a "difficult" verse and exalting it over all the clear verses on the same subject. Tongues are languages. They are not "groanings that cannot be uttered" or "groans that are not spoken" by definition. If they're not spoken, they're not SPEAKING in tongues. If they are groanings that cannot be uttered, they are not uttered, and thus not spoken, and thus not SPEAKING in tongues. This isn't hard. If this verse is talking about SIT (and I think it probably is), it is clearly talking about OUR inability to put things into words without God's help. Speaking in tongues is supposed to BE that help. But it's tongues. It's still languages. It doesn't suddenly change the clear verses into secret codes and celestial languages.

That is my hypothesis, and it is open to debate.

Quite. ;)

And, although tongues may be diluted by unbelief or simulation in the operator, this wouldn't then detract from the operation of the spirit within, which is perfect. You may still be operating the power of the holy spirit within, even though you have doubted yourself what you have spoken, because the operation of the spirit is not spoken.

Already addressed. Just as Karl is the best witness to testify as to whether he was ever really born again, I am the best (indeed, the only irrefutable) witness to testify as to whether I faked SIT. You don't get to come along and say "well just because you doubted what you did, doesn't mean you didn't really SIT."

I. Didn't. Really. SIT.

Likewise, for interpretation and prophecy, just because the person speaking influences what is being said, this doesn't negate the perfect operation of the spirit within.

Addressed elsewhere on this thread. The short of it: Confession is the only way to "prove" anyone ever faked interpretation and prophecy. I can't even prove anyone never spoke in tongues. I can only point to the fact that the testable evidence, all of it, supports that assertion. But you can respond by rejecting ALL testable evidence, either by denying God's participation or rejecting the expertise of those conducting or interpreting the tests. When you do that, you argue against the evidence, which I suppose is fine, but pulls the rug out from any effort to discuss the issue in rational terms.

I addressed the rest of your post.

Wow. That wasn't so hard. :blink:

Edited October 26, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

Yes, this rejects the "firsthand" testimony of Socks and Tom, which I contend (and Socks explicitly said) is really secondhand. You may cling to those anecdotes as proof. I can't stop you. I contend we have not nearly enough information to accept them. We don't even know who the people involved are! But we do know that TWI was just RIDDLED with people who were eager to impress each other with their spiritual acumen. I wouldn't put a faked "lack of knowledge of a language" or "understanding of what was spoken in a tongue" past anyone without knowing more about who they were. After all, on this thread alone, half the people who've responded admit faking tongues, and all but a few have admitted faking interpretation and prophecy, at least sometimes. So the eyewitness testimony of what someone ELSE claimed happened, for real, honest... Interesting. Worthy of consideration. But far, far from proof.

I wanted to chip in here on my perception of test subjects, eyewitness accounts, etc. When I started delving into the samples that some of these people writing books and studies had, what started to surface to me was the huge variation in sources that were being accepted. I see Poythress talk about how "free vocalization" can be performed by those not claiming Christian background. I see references in Samarin to xenoglossia. Then I see the actual examples they are talking about - the written works of William James to the American Psychic Research center of the account of Albert Lee getting messages from his "psychic automatism", the definition of the term xenoglossia by Charles Richet involving the medium that showed evidence of automatic writing in two languages.

These are the bulk of the cited samples I see in research work of "non-Christians" doing "free vocalization".

I will say that two firsthand accounts of people experiencing the phenomenon where there was SIT in a fellowship and people understood what was said in the tongue is AT LEAST equal and probably A LOT MORE PERTINENT to the topic we are studying than the examples presented in research. Why so? As I stated before, it seems that scientists are completely unable to distinguish between holy spirit and devil spirit in these accounts.

In these accounts, we know people that were involved. We have heard their stories and experiences with TWI, we know how they think, we know their base reputation as not being prone to lying, we have physical details of the accounts involved. We don't have all the people's names, or their firsthand testimony of them understanding the SIT.

To me, for me to be honest in evaluating these, I have to rank the sources. I rank them according to detail, credibility, reliability. And honestly I have to put socks and Tom's accounts higher at proving SIT than I do those of mediums talking to their spirit guides are related to proving "non-Christian free vocalization".

Then I read Samarin's expressions of how amazed he is at the innate linguistic ability of mankind, to so closely reproduce the phonetic elements of a language in SIT. His amazement is at the subconscious human mind, how it can in such a detailed fashion craft all of these things. My amazement is a little different. I'm amazed at first, why a man not born-again would have such an interest in investigating spiritual born-again related phenomena, and secondarily how inept science is at measuring anything spiritual and coming to a rational logical conclusion.

To me it is nowhere near a rational logical conclusion to look at a medium's account of communicating with his spirit guide, that spirit guide speaking in two languages, and to conclude that "free vocalization can be performed by non-Christians", and thus take that as proof that all Christian phenomena in the category is fake.

[Raf]

So there's no such thing as "free vocalization" as an innate human ability that anyone can do, Christian or non-Christian. Am I reading you correctly?

Because that's nonsense. So I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you.

You're employing quite a strawman argument here. We will likely lose our remaining reader if I try to dissect it point for point. But I will if you insist. I'd rather you do it on your own.

[Raf]

In these accounts, we know people that were involved. We have heard their stories and experiences with TWI, we know how they think, we know their base reputation as not being prone to lying, we have physical details of the accounts involved. We don't have all the people's names, or their firsthand testimony of them understanding the SIT.

Your first sentence conflicts with your last.

I submit we have, at best, credible witness to a non-credible event. I believe Socks and Tom. I do not believe the people they are citing. I have no reason to. Every single characteristic you mention that attests to the credibility of Socks and Tom is missing from the people who spoke in tongues and who understood what was spoken. Of those people, we do NOT know their experiences with TWI, we do NOT know how they think, we do NOT know their base reputation as not being prone to lying. For the same reason we can trust Socks and Tom, we cannot yet trust those who made the claims in the first place. And without that information, we do not have nearly enough proof.

That it's possible to fake tongues by free vocalization is self evident. I did it. Others admit doing it. Despite your convoluted attempt to discredit the possibility of it, it is an innate human ability. If I need to prove that, I will. I really hope I don't.

[chockfull]

So there's no such thing as "free vocalization" as an innate human ability that anyone can do, Christian or non-Christian. Am I reading you correctly?

Because that's nonsense. So I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you.

You're employing quite a strawman argument here. We will likely lose our remaining reader if I try to dissect it point for point. But I will if you insist. I'd rather you do it on your own.

I am commenting on others' terms and studies. I don't draw conclusions in an all-encompassing and knee-jerk fashion, and then proclaim my opinion as "truth" or "proven". That would be more like the fashion you are arguing, it's true, but that's not how I roll.

If you want to consider it a "strawman" to point out that doing studies on mediums and their spirit guides and using them to "prove" conclusions about SIT and how it works is inherently problematic, then by all means label that a strawman and hack away at it there, Don Quixote.

[Raf]

The fact that psychics and other loons claim to produce xenoglossia (claims that are universally discredited, by the way. You seem to have left that part out for some reason) does not prove the action of a devil spirit at work.

The fact that WHAT they produce appears no different to the trained linguist, at the very least, suggests that they are producing the same thing that those who claim glossolaia are producing: free vocalization claiming a spiritual energy to produce a real human language but, in reality, producing linguistic nonsense. In neither case is their any evidence that a real human language is produced.

Psychics and mediums are faking it. They are not producing human languages.

Neither are those who SIT.

I am commenting on others' terms and studies. I don't draw conclusions in an all-encompassing and knee-jerk fashion, and then proclaim my opinion as "truth" or "proven". That would be more like the fashion you are arguing, it's true, but that's not how I roll.

If you want to consider it a "strawman" to point out that doing studies on mediums and their spirit guides and using them to "prove" conclusions about SIT and how it works is inherently problematic, then by all means label that a strawman and hack away at it there, Don Quixote.

I will take that as an endorsement of the fact that you want me to show, point for point, how very ridiculous your argument is. Very well then. This will take time, like untangling a phone cord. Remember phone cords? Showing my age.

And by the way, I'm a little over-tired of the false accusation that I have referred to my case as "proven." I have said the testable evidence agrees with me, and that is a fact, not my opinion.

So kindly stop misrepresenting me.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

Let me start with the consequences of believing there's no such thing as free vocalization as an innate, human ability.

It means everyone who DOES free vocalize is doing so with a spiritual energy behind him. No human being can merely DO this, unaided by spirit.

The spirit is either of God or is not. Thus, anyone who free vocalizes and claims it is not energized by God is either wrong, or energized by devil spirits.

So we're either lying about lying, wrong about lying, or we're deeeeeemon influenced.

Please let me know if I am characterizing the terms, and the stakes, accurately.

[chockfull]

The fact that psychics and other loons claim to produce xenoglossia (claims that are universally discredited, by the way. You seem to have left that part out for some reason) does not prove the action of a devil spirit at work.

The fact that those claims are the ones that are illustrated in the very works you are now ignoring except for the terms "universally discredited" you are using kind of shows something about the credibility you have when using the word "prove".

The fact that WHAT they produce appears no different to the trained linguist, at the very least, suggests that they are producing the same thing that those who claim glossolaia are producing: free vocalization claiming a spiritual energy to produce a real human language but, in reality, producing linguistic nonsense. In neither case is their any evidence that a real human language is produced.

The fact that the term xenoglossia comes from an "automatic writing" study in which nobody is speaking at all kind of suggests something different, but hey, don't let facts get in your way.

Psychics and mediums are faking it. They are not producing human languages.

Actually, I think one of the medium messages from his spirit guide was in Spanish, which the medium didn't understand, but others did. You know, sometimes it helps if you actually spend more time reading the studies than you do immediately knee-jerk posting your opinions as proof.

Neither are those who SIT.

When you keep doing this, post after post, stating your opinion as fact, it leaves me with little alternative. I can either post the opposite opinion as fact equally, like "Those who SIT absolutely are producing human languages" to try and get equal billing time. Or I can call you out on it. But at this point, I think you know there are problems with you stating your opinion as fact, and you just don't care. You just want to get the rhetoric out there as many times stated as possible.

So I'll state my take on this whole thing. And I'm going to call you out on it again.

Those in Acts were SIT and producing tongues. Those today who SIT are also producing tongues. Some today are upset with their previous experience, either because they were dishonest, or have become dissatisfied with the cultic practices of the group that taught them this, or someone taught them in an abusive fashion and environment, or they have changed their view on the trinity and now want to worship an ethereal third persona of the Godhead called the Holy Spirit and relinquish control to "Him", or various other reasons. So they want to distance themselves from their previous experience.

A very easy way to do this is to project their dissatisfaction on others. This is a psychological term called "projection". That is what you are doing. You are "projecting" your distrust that the Bible works today like it did for those in Acts on others. You have no logical explanation for why this would change, only point to existing theology opinions that it "died with the Apostles".

When we are discussing subject sources, you dismiss some out of hand with very weak logical reasoning. Then later you feel bad about offending one of these people and apologize to them on the same thread you are acting this way on. Somehow we end up with a medium and his conversation with what the medium himself calls "spirit guides, psychic automatons, etc." are used in studies on SIT. And they "prove" that non-Christians can "free vocalize", which to me is kind of a BS term that describes they could either be SIT or talking to a spirit guide but producing similar sounding things to scientists who don't speak the languages involved.

So yes, by all means, please point out how "ridiculous" my arguments are. And in the process, please try to avoid looking more "ridiculous" yourself.

Let me start with the consequences of believing there's no such thing as free vocalization as an innate, human ability.

Let's start with the term "free vocalization" as being BS. It's not Biblical, it's not scientific, it's a descriptive word trying to lump two things together that don't belong together in the first place.

[chockfull]

And by the way, I'm a little over-tired of the false accusation that I have referred to my case as "proven." I have said the testable evidence agrees with me, and that is a fact, not my opinion.

So kindly stop misrepresenting me.

No, testable evidence does not agree with you. You have conceded that nobody has proven that the SIT samples reviewed by the study writers "never would have been understood by anyone on Earth at any time". Thus, testable evidence does not agree with you. I even pointed out the lack of thoroughness of people doing the studies where they did not offer up the samples they were using worldwide to see if ANYONE currently living understood the languages. The study writers simply noted that they themselves, and others involved did not understand what was being spoken.

So in summary, no the evidence does not support your conclusion.

Next on the quality of the samples, which we do not have access to. We cannot corroborate, verify, examine, question the subjects like the burden of proof you want to place on tom and scott. So to accept those samples and reject the accounts of tom and scott for those exact reasons is completely illogical.

Edited October 26, 2012 by chockfull