SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession
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
Nov 7
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
Nov 7 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
Bolshevik
SIT/prophecy was always a very humiliating experience. I feared fellowship all day because I knew I would likely be called upon. If I wasn't called upon, I felt relieved. If I was, I felt ashamed when it was over.
In exceler sessions you were taught to practice with different syllables, try a new language maybe. Wasn't that supposed to be their god's decision?
If your prophecy was not inspiring, or redundant, or similar to what the last person just "prophecied" . . . you got yelled at. Clearly, you had not studied enough or been SITing privately enough.
If you paid attention, some people always spoke in tongues the same way each time . . . but the interpretation would be different. No Rosetta stones for SIT.
I was lying. They were lying. We were lying.
Some folks had a natural gift . . . but it clearly wasn't supernatural.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pete
Well, looks like I should have remembered III Peter 2:2
Young man who drinks too much on an evening, ends up having p1ss1ng contest in middle of night.
Raf, you pose some interesting and valid questions. As you say, it would have been better if those types of tests were done, but possibly they didn't think any further ahead than the particular issue that they were addressing at the time.
This discussion has brought back some interesting memories for me. I never SIT in the 12th session. I flatly refused. This is difficult when you are faced with a high degree of peer pressure, and everyone else jabbering away in the background. Afterwards the class coordinator took me to a separate room to find out what was wrong. I just didn't like the way it was done in the 12th session. I had no advanced warning that this was going to happen in the way that it did. I felt that I was being co-erced into doing something in a way that I wasn't comfortable with. This was all wrong to me. However, when asked to SIT afterwards, I did. And I didn't make it up and it was fully formed the first time I did it. It has not get any better from that fist time.
Now I did study a bit of basic French at school. But the language and syllables that came forth that day were from an entirely different vocabulary to anything I had experienced before. And the language was consistent: not French one moment and then Italian the next if you understand. Same glutteral stops, same basic sound structure. Anyone could tell that this was a language.
I've never needed to, or wanted to make up the language myself.
If it is not genuine SIT, the alternative is that I somehow have the ability somewhere in my brain to conjure up a completely foreign language that I have absolutely no comprehension of as to its meaning.
That's going to take quite a few dollars of research money to work out, in my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pete
Old Skool
Thanks for posting the link.
It's some time since I viewed the documentary and I don't think that this is the same one. The documentary I saw concentrated on a single subject for the tongues analysis and I seem to remember them being wired up with sensors on their brain. Also, the documentary identified the area of the brain that was active when the person was SIT. But my memory isn't totally reliable and the item shown hits on similar stuff.
As far as the posted link goes, I have to say that the lady who says that she is "out of control" is experiencing something that is different from what I experience. I would speculate that her SIT is genuine, but that her "out of control" bit is personal to her.
But hey, if that's where she need to go, who am I to object, only I hope that she really means that she's just getting herself in a cool relaxed state of mind, rather than actually being "out of control".
I try not to get myself out of control in case when I get back in control I find out that I've murdered someone, or worse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pete
Bolshevik
I can relate to what you say, and I experienced much the same, only I never got yelled at in that way as far as I recall.
I think that it is totally shameful that they yelled at you that way.
That is a traumatic experience to go through and one that could have affected you in a bad way.
It wasn't your problem and you have to understand that.
You didn't do anything wrong, they did!
My only question would be, just because the Way scr3wed things up, does that make the whole thing false?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You had me at Anyone could tell this was a language.
With respect, Pete, probably not. Unless your experience is vastly different from those studied or confessed to, what you brought forth was likely a series of sounds with some language-like qualities that you bring to the table with your background in speaking English, some French and whatever else.
it's not genuine SIT, and you do not have the ability in your brain to conjure up a completely foreign language. That's not a language you're speaking. It's not that you have no comprehension as to the meaning of what you're saying. What you're saying HAS no meaning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
This point, in particular, helps greatly in understanding that it's not a uniquely Christian ability. Christians can do it. Jews can do it. Shamans can do it. The list goes on. How is that possible? Simple. It's merely an innate ability of the human mind to "speak in tongues". It might sound genuine and be presented with theatrical fanfare but, in the end, it's not a real language. There are plenty of recorded examples that could be examined from a mathematical perspective to show that it's not real. I think, for some people, that would prove to be like chasing the end of the rainbow.
I'm reminded of the movie The Gods Must Be Crazy. In it, a group of people who have never had contact with the world outside their cultural sphere are confronted with the discovery of a Coke bottle that has been discarded by someone in a passing airplane. The bottle could be this or the bottle could be that but, ultimately, the bottle is just a bottle.
HERE
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Getting mixed signals from Word Wolf. What are you asserting or admitting regarding your own experience with respect to each of the three inspiration manifestations?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
No, that's your opinion. To state the conclusions in this fashion you would have had to prove it, which all have agreed you are not able to do. Now the paragraph before states "likely" which is more accurate. This one is inaccurate, as it is opinion stated as fact.
That is definitely one thing I had more than enough of in TWI...
I mean on the other side of the coin, I could state to Pete:
"Pete, you absolutely were speaking in tongues, an unknown language. The scriptures speak of it, you acted on the scriptures, and God came through with the results. Don't doubt it because of skeptics."
But, I don't state things in that way because they are unproven with respect to this thread.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Isn't this sort of proof a bit like saying, "If you're not here, raise your hand."?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
No, this sort of proof is a bit like there is something supernatural we are trying to prove, and are unable to accomplish it one way or the other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's really quite simple. It can be proven that a sample of speaking in tongues is not a language. It cannot be proven that a sample of speaking in tongues is a language. The onus of proof has somehow been reversed in this argument.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
What?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yes and no, chockfull. Whether he was speaking a real language is a matter of fact that can be examined and determined with relative ease. It is not a matter of opinion.
However, you are correct in that I am indeed expressing my opinion of what such an examination would show, as well as the implication, Biblically, if it is not an earthly language. The paragraph you quoted was preceded by the context of "probably not" and "unless you experienced something vastly different from what has been studied or confessed."
Curious: why did you call me out for expressing my opinion with confidence I am right, yet you let Pete's assertion that Anyone could tell this was a language go unchallenged? Isn't that opinion, quite falsifiable or verifiable, just as much an expression of opinion as fact?
and one more time: you could prove it in a heartbeat by producing a verifiable language. ;)
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I am pretty sure this thread has turned into a circle jerk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Sorry...clicked the wrong thing
It's called a Burden of Proof Fallacy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What did you call me? ;)
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
No it can't. What he spoke wasn't recorded. If it was recorded, it may be like many other samples. Polythress, to remind you, presented findings that free vocalization had many elements of language, including grammatical breakdowns like language of sentence and phrase. So by that he did NOT prove one way or another that the samples he studied were or were not languages. His conclusions were NOT that the samples were not languages, he just noted the details of what he did find. In that he was scientifically truthful to his method.
Yes I noted the previous paragraph to include the word "likely". I took issue with a single paragraph.
To me his statement was an expression of how he was feeling at the time, and did not come across as an expression of fact or an attempt to express fact. Yours did, so that's why I singled it out. Maybe you read his statement differently, which could have been why you made such a strong statement.
And one more time - if God intended it to be proven He would have designed it such. However, there are many things in which He requires a non-scientific leap of faith. The new birth, for example.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
OK, while there are logical fallacies, we are really not in the midst of one here. People are sharing their experiences and beliefs. They are different. They believe different things. We have scientific studies of a phenomenon. However, that phenomenon is claimed to be energized by Spirit, which nobody can detect or measure scientifically. Thus it's not a shocker that they are not able to present conclusions on something they can't detect or measure.
Because of this, we need to take care in our language to present things as IMO. If we don't, we quickly get the place of what is called a "Mexican Standoff" where people on each side are demanding proof and there is none to be had.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Impasse
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The leap of faith.
Yes, almost anything can be justified with a leap of faith.
That's what Wierwille asked us to take in the Christians Should Have Sex class when he revealed "the original sin" and said, "I can't prove this from the scriptures, you'll just have to take my word on it."
I'm not saying you should never take a leap of faith. I'm just saying this isn't one of those situations that warrants it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
No it can't be proven that a sample of SIT is not a language. It can be shown that gibberish is not a language. "Free vocalization" is studied, and there is no conclusion on whether it is language or not definitively. Is "free vocalization" speaking in tongues? That's another thing that cannot be proven or disproven.
There is no onus of proof.
Prove there is a God that you can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch. Same thing.
And we should take a leap of faith and trust you on your judgment that this situation isn't one that warrants it?
That's the most accurate thing you've said all morning :B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Here is how a burden of proof fallacy works:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
There is no comparison between a charlatan like Wierwille asking us to have faith in his BS and an almighty God who asks us to have faith in him that he is true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
While I do see your point, I don't think God ever asked us to have faith that what we called speaking in tongues is genuine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites