SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

For the record.

I have repeatedly stated that modern SIT does not produce human languages. I have not always labeled that my opinion, mostly because I respect your intelligence enough to not think I have to do that every single time I say it. Forgive me if I have overestimated your intelligence, but I dont believe that to be the case.

I have never, ever, not a single time, referred to that opinion as a proven fact or an incontrovertible truth or (God forbid) undisputed. There is no other word for the contention that I characterized my opinion as such except for bald-faced lie. I did use those words to describe something else, something whose legitimacy and veracity has now been challenged with such a stunning lack of intellectual honesty that it's impossible to take seriously.

Confronted on the LIE, Chockfull established that I have stated modern SIT does not produce language. I have never denied that. He failed to find a single time where I referred to that opinion as a proven, undisputed fact. THAT was the lie.

As I've said, I'm done debating with people whose intellectual honesty I do not respect.

Sorry if that offends anyone.

Actually, I'm not.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Raf

[WordWolf]

The burden of proof fallacy basically is "whoever said something first or loudest has to prove it".

If you really think "burden of proof" is a "FALLACY", you really have been going on

without TRYING to understand what you're talking about.

Burden of Proof is an important part of discussion, debate, and legal proceedings

for a very, very long time.

You are mixing up the A's and the B's here. Raf started the thread. He made claim A. I thought he was full of hot air speaking about my personal private prayer life in that fashion. I stated B.

If there is a burden of proof here by the standard definition it's Raf's, as he made the big fat claim in the first 10 posts on this thread before I even entered it.

The claim was made decades ago. vpw put forth that the modern SIT is the same as the Biblical SIT

and is supernatural. We all bought into it for decades, and some of us still do.

Decades later, Raf said "Wait a minute" then said "PROVE Claim A. PROVE that modern is the same as Biblical

and is supernatural."

That means the burden of proof is on the side making the extraordinary claim.

This is easy for most people to get.

This thread began DECADES after Claim A was made, and challenges Claim A.

Claim A came first.

It was "the big fat claim" that we were all doing something supernatural and equal to that done

on Pentecost despite them not resembling each other. That was before THIS THREAD ever entered.

However, in reviewing the history of this argument, who started the claim on one side or the other is harder to pinpoint, so I'm saying neither side has a burden that they have to prove.

One side has made an extraordinary claim.

The other side said "Prove it."

The side claiming Biblical SIT=modern SIT has the burden of proof.

[Raf]

Don't bother, WW. You're wasting your time. An argument that seeks the truth is worth pursuing. An argument that seeks to exasperate the other side until it "wins" by sheer exhaustion is not.

You have very clearly stated the burden of proof issue, as have I. But you're talking to a brick wall.

[Raf]

By the way, I have no qualms about burden of proof or any other issue raised here.

But it is not whoever made the claim first or loudest. It's the one making the affirmative claim, the more remarkable claim. Chockfull "sincerely" believes I am making the greater, more remarkable claim. I put Sincerely in quotes, the same way the abstract on Samarin put Language in quotes while describing SIT. You have my permission to read into that.

[cman]

what is 'Biblical SIT'

what is 'modern SIT'

i don't see where anyone knows

except for themselves

for me, it's speaking by the spirit

i suppose

so if it was 2000 years ago or today

it would be the same-if i hear it

if i hear it today or 2000 years from today

[Raf]

Hi cman.

I think Biblical SIT is fairly clear in its expectation that the sounds that come out will be a foreign language. I see no real proof that modern SIT does this. Allegations are not proof. I see LOTS of allegations, but no proof.

I therefore conclude they are not the same thing.

There is such a thing as free vocalization that is an innate, human ability. That is an established, proven, incontrovertible fact that is undisputed by anyone approaching this subject with a shred of integrity.

When I look at modern SIT and what it produces, and what it fails to produce, and I compare modern SIT to what's described in Acts and Corinthians as well as free vocalization, I find a partial match with Corinthians and a 100 percent match with free vocalization. The parts that match Corinthians are wholly consistent with free vocalization.

As for the notion that God won't cooperate with a study: all that does is underscore how easy it is for a sincere believer to fake SIT and not even know it. Which kind of is my bleeping point, isn't it?

I see not one shred of documented evidence that modern SIT is Biblical SIT. The closest is insistent "I guess you had to be there” stories.

You can accept modern SIT as Biblical SIT all you want. I can't stop you. But don't lie about where the evidence points.

In case it's not obvious, cman should not take the WHOLE post as directed at him.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Raf

[cman]

Raf, all of that really depends on the one that hears the tongue.

As you call, biblical-sit, not being understood or foreign.

I would have to say that many did understand.

It's only foreign to those who do not understand.

And nothing bad about that either, for anyone, just sayin'.

For me, modern-sit is the same as biblical, cause I've heard tongues and understood.

Not that I'm special, quite the different perspective, that is quite opposite of what you are saying what modern-sit is.

Anyway...we will all hear it eventually and understand the tongue of the spirit.

In it's time.

[OldSkool]

For me, modern-sit is the same as biblical, cause I've heard tongues and understood.

Hold the phone...you have heard someone speak in tongues and you understood the language?

[Raf]

This outta be good

[Raf]

By the way, those watching: THIS is a firsthand account. See the difference?

[OldSkool]

Ok, lemme say where I am at the moment on the topic. I have gone through a lot of mental wranglings. And no I have not read every post or followed every link or whatever. Just don't have the attention span...honest enough?

My mental wranglings on the subject have taken me from not wanting to question the validity of modern SIT, to realizing I had wrong teaching from TWI that taught me to have faith in SIT as proof positive of so many things. Yet, that is wrong because I am supposed to have faith IN God...not SIT.

Ok...so it's not proof of everything then it still must be real because I never faked anything. Onwards...

I have dealt with a lot of defense mechanisms in my own brain. At times I have felt defensive because something I believed true seemed to be under attack. At other times I have found myself very apathetic and seemed inclined to the attitude of "why attack someone else's faith?" -- which is very wrong in this case, since no one is really attacking anything....we are suppose to prove all things and hold fast the good right?

So here I am. I understand the two side's ongoing arguments. The burden of proof is on the tongue talkers, no doubt.

So here is the issue at hand...and it reflects my current disposition.

Modern SIT should stand up to scrutiny. It should prove itself to be what the Bible says it is. Else, where is the integrity in what I believe? God is true.

What if.....what if modern SIT is all BS and not one of us here (that has been influenced by the charismatic movement and taught by Wierwille) has been exposed to true SIT as described in the Bible?

I am finally willing to accept that, and personally, I want to know the truth.

[Raf]

For me it's a bit simpler.

I just had to admit I faked it. It wasn't a doctrinal realization. It was a personal one. I THINK we all did. I can't prove that. Impossible to prove. But I have been able to demonstrate two things: one, a rational human mechanism that produces the exact same result (to the best of any unbiased ability to tell) and two, any sincere person can fake it without even realizing it.

So maybe cman's story will check out, if he chooses to offer more details. And I will have been proved wrong.

That will say I was wrong to extrapolate to all experiences.

It still demonstrates nothing about yours. That's between you and Him, no matter what I or those who disagree with me allegedly prove.

Simply put, if the fact that I faked it doesn't prove you did, then the fact that someone else told the truth also doesn't prove you did.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

By the way: not that this will affect me one way or another, but how much information does cman need to provide before my initial skepticism becomes unreasonable to maintain? What MUST we know to believe his story is an example of genuine Biblical SIT? What information is valuable but not a dealbreaker if not provided?

Just curious to know other people's thoughts.

If you think he's already provided enough information, you have no right whatsoever to accuse ME of having a low standard of proof. Just... Saying...

Edited October 27, 2012 by Raf

[cman]

it's not something i will offer proof about

that would be a waste of time

nor would i ask anyone to believe me

that would be crazy

enough to say it is not what i expected

more

[Raf]

Ok. And that's fine. I will not press you to tell any more than you wish to, nor will I pass judgment on the account. I'm sure you can appreciate me retaining my skepticism in the absence of any more info. Nothing personal.

But it would not be a waste of time. At the very least, it would help affirm the faith if those who sincerely want me to be wrong.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Raf

[cman]

I believe the bible in 1 Corin . focuses on the hearer.

Not the speaker.

Yes it would be a waste of time.

I leave things like this alone.

I mentioned my experience because it's not a lost art.

Edited October 27, 2012 by cman

[Raf]

I'm not going to argue about not arguing.

If you don't want to share your story, fine. Don't. But I have no basis on which to share your conclusion that it's not a lost art. In this thread, some people get mad if you state an opinion as fact without proving it.

Not me. I don't care what you choose to believe. I only care what you choose to argue (and I don't mean that in a negative sense).

I think I Corinthians instructs the speaker to consider the listener. I'm not sure what you're getting at with that.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

I think what he's saying is something along these lines:

I give a message in English, which is my native language

Someone who only understands Spanish hears me and understands my message as if I had delivered it in Spanish.

Is that what you are saying cman?

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

It still fails to explain why there is no organized structure to the message.

Edited October 28, 2012 by waysider

[cman]

no, not at all

it's not about different languages, imo

and not what was taught in twi, or even close

[waysider]

Oh, O.K......

[Raf]

Ok, simple question: cman, how many different languages do you speak? Was it one of those languages?

[Ham]

So many pages.. I think modern sit + interpretation is nothing more than a training ground for false prophets..

[cman]

Ok, simple question: cman, how many different languages do you speak? Was it one of those languages?

lol...

[waysider]

So many pages.. I think modern sit + interpretation is nothing more than a training ground for false prophets..

False prophet sounds a bit lofty. Maybe charlatan would be a more appropriate word.

[Raf]

Ok, I'll bite. Why is that a funny question?