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
Raf
Well, you could dispute my premise, ww. If Biblical SIT is not what I think it is, every conclusion I draw can be questioned.
Ok, I'll stop messing with you guys.
I am Word Wolf.
Just kidding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually,
I think I'll wait a month or so before starting a thread that looks over that premise
from the verse-by-verse end. (A Doctrinal thread in that forum, of course.)
If the results go that way, I reserve the right to dispute it-
but I'll wait until I have something more substantial than
"I don't like your conclusions and I like my conclusions",
which is pretty much all I have to go with today.
"I'M Spartacus!"
"I'M Spartacus!"
I may point this to the Mrs and see if she wants to reply to that one!
On a serious note, Paw's met us both face-to-face, as have a few
other posters down the years. (Paw's met me and Raf, not me and my Mrs)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
IF, by "over 100 times," you mean "not a single time. That's a lie." Then yes, yes, that's exactly what I did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
So, you're claiming the absence of you having posted that.
The burden of proof is on chockfull to link to even one post where you said exactly that.
If chockfull can do that, it's a slam-dunk.
Really, burden of proof, in principle, is easy to understand.
We have an accidental example of it right here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
See? Again. No, they were NOT understood in the medium's cases.
Crap, you're not even reading this stuff, are you?
This is what I'm talking about. You're not reading the studies. You're trolling through them looking for gaps that you can cast doubt on and claim that the truth about SIT would be understood if we only had the information to fill in those gaps. You have every right to do that, but read the bleeping report before you declare a gap where solid ground exists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I think it would be great to see some of this energy and anger directed at Raf's questions ....redirected at the false teachers who hide in plain sight in the charismatic movement, who abuse people using these supposed gifts....to me, that would be a genuine Godly motivation. It is not just a few here who question modern tongues.....it is many many Christians. Are we going to get angry at all of them? These studies and the glaring reality that there are no documented cases of modern tongues producing a language speak to more than just a few on this thread. It is everywhere.
None of these questions change that God is still on the throne and the Holy Spirit dwells in the heart of true Christians. . . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Hey, I want credit for getting angry. I didn't see anyone responding in kind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
They were understood in the medium's case. You just haven't read the account referenced by Samarin yet. I'll leave off the other name calling to you.
On p. 56 of Samarin's article, paragraph 2, he references Albert Le Baron's personal record, which was submitted to the American Society for Psychical Research by William James.
Below is Le Baron's account written in that article:
So tell me again how the languages weren't understood? If they weren't understood, then how would it be possible to "pencil them down and subsequently trace them to primitive Dravidian or British Indian?"
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
The burden of proof fallacy basically is "whoever said something first or loudest has to prove it".
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.
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. I'm just tired of hearing Claim A stated as fact over and over again.
"No modern SIT produces a language". Now we have Raf saying he didn't say that over and over. So maybe I read it in an alternate universe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I didn't realize your questions angered you too.....I sensed your frustration in how they were addressed. . . . but if you want credit....by all means take it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Here's an example of stating opinion as fact. It is not proven that "neither are those who SIT". So why are you stating is as fact? Or is this another case that I'm reading in an alternate universe that although I have the quote, you didn't really say it?
There is no testable evidence that agrees with you that those that are SIT are not producing human languages. Just that nobody understood what was spoken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Another example of Raf saying "Modern SIT does not produce languages". Or wait, he wasn't really saying it :blink:
One more -
Here's Raf saying in his own words of his own main source that Samarin never proves that modern SIT do not produce languages.
I know - my alternate universe again.
=======================================
All right - from my perspective I've gone back to p. 57 of this discussion, and already found numerous examples of where Raf is stating "modern SIT does not produce languages" as fact and not an opinion. That's in the last 4 pages. So until someone points out to me the difference in the alternate universe where I'm obtaining these quotes from a real universe, I'm going to go with
Raf is stating opinion as fact when he says "modern SIT does not produce languages", and that this hasn't been proven.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
More distortions of what I did say. I don't know how you can look in a mirror. For real.
Fortunately, folks can see for themselves how you claim I said something, we ask for proof, and you prove I said half of it over here and a third of it over there and a shred of it over here and presto! Five crucified.
In quoting James, you seem to have left out Samarin's conclusion after comparing the alleged xenoglossia to language. Wonder why you would do that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Here's another account of languages spoken in a tongue understood by another, courtesy of our good Catholic friends:
De Nile isn't just a river going through the Amazon.
"Free vocalization" is a made up term. I'm finding that it causes confusion using it, as I'm not sure whether it is talking about people SIT, people faking it, or a medium talking to his spirit guide.
So no all of those things to me don't represent an innate human ability.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Sure. Since LeBaron had the kindness to write it down, he gave Samarin a claim and a language to test it again. Samarin rang the bulls hit alarm. Read the flipping report.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Re: your rejection of free vocalization. That's very nice. It establishes that we cannot gave an honest conversation because you will hurl evidence out the window if it doesn't suit your need.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Chockfull, you have no credibility. I will not answer you anymore. I was enjoying this for a bit, but you b.s. has pushed me too far. Keep posting what you want. I decline to sift through it anymore. I'm a reporter, not a sewer worker.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
In The Pentecostal Movement in the Catholic Church, (Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press 1971) E D O'Connor claims several cases of xenoglossia. Sumrall (1993:126) gives an example of a man who spoke in tongues after a sermon. Another man interpreted his message. "When they had finished, a young man walked to the front and spoke in a foreign language to the one who had given the message. The brother answered: 'I'm sorry, sir, but I don't understand any other language.' The man replied: 'But you spoke my language beautifully. I am Persian.' . the brother answered: 'No, it was the spirit who spoke to you. it was God talking to you, not me.' "
It's an unverifiable anecdote.
"Free vocalization" is a made up term. I'm finding that it causes confusion using it, as I'm not sure whether it is talking about people SIT, people faking it, or a medium talking to his spirit guide
Who's confused by it? I submit that if someone has exercised due diligence in reading the contents of this thread, there should be no confusion what the term means.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I put all "it really happened, I swear" anecdotes into the same category as ufo abductions, Mary Mother of God sightings and Jesus on Rye sightings (although that last category at least has the good sense not to hide the toast and just say "trust me").
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
the burden of proof is the spirit's
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
And now, from the people who brought you Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Lourdes, and the (mighty big) Assumption of Mary, more Tales of the Uncorroborated. Here's your host, Joe Isuzu!
I have no basis on which to assume you were trying to be funny rather than really making this mistake. I hope it was a joke.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Waysider,
Free vocalization is the rational explanation for the linguistic nonsense produced in modern SIT. Confusing is trying to come up with a coherent response to it. Clarity is gained by denying it exists.
Miss anything?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Experts estimate that half of all the languages in use today will be extinct by the beginning of the next century. One thing won't change, though. Whatever languages remain will serve the same purpose language has always served. They will communicate messages and knowledge and do so in a structured manner..
Link to comment
Share on other sites