SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Ham]

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

maybe we only disagree as regards to semantics..

one is a spiritual interpretation..

the other is an honest interpretation..

why can't they both be the same..

[waysider]

maybe we only disagree as regards to semantics..

one is a spiritual interpretation..

the other is an honest interpretation..

why can't they both be the same..

Oh, I think they can be the same. It's just a matter of how things sound. Like how a garbage man is now called a sanitary engineer. Except, this is like an inverted example.

[WordWolf]

Oh, I think they can be the same. It's just a matter of how things sound. Like how a garbage man is now called a sanitary engineer. Except, this is like an inverted example.

Or a "waste management artisan", in Bloom County.

Or saying someone is supposed to be "sanctioned" when the job is an assassination.

[Raf]

I'm a reporter, not a waste management artisan.

Doesn't have the same ring to it.

[Raf]

When you employ a chain of logic that leads to a patently absurd conclusion, you are obliged to uncover the flaw in your logical chain that brought you to that conclusion. The presumption must be that there's a flaw in the logical chain. Even if, despite your best efforts, you are unable to find the flaw in your logic, you are entitled, in fact required, to presume there is a flaw until you do find it.

I'll give you an example. When I was a small child, one of my teachers tried to prove I had 11 fingers. We started by counting down from the left hand: 10,9,8,7,6. Then we counted up from the right hand. 1,2,3,4,5.

Six on one hand. Five on the other. 11 fingers.

Now, as a small child, I knew enough to know the conclusion was wrong. But my understanding of logic and reasoning, at the time, was too immature to spot the flaw. I only knew that there must BE a flaw because I knew I had 10 fingers and not 11. That fact was indisputable. Arguing the indisputable fact was a waste of time. The issue at hand was to identify and correct the logical flaw.

...

We have been presented with a "chain of logic" that has led to the "conclusion" that free vocalization as an innate human ability that anyone can do, Christian or non-Christian, spiritually energized or not, does not exist. But free vocalization as so defined DOES exist. That incontrovertible fact is not subject to debate. Children do it. Atheists do it. Actors do it. It is a patently obvious, documentable, easily replicated, indisputable truth. Denying it is tantamount to denying a round, spherical earth, denying that air is breathable, denying the germ theory of disease. I mean, yeah, you CAN have a discussion about those things, but only to educate the ignorant. The facts themselves are not seriously in contention.

I would not engage in a debate about the existence of germs, a term someone just made up one day, if the debate was with my doctor. I would consider him unqualified to be a doctor and I'd find me another doctor.

We're supposed to be impressed that "free vocalization is a made up term." What's not said, of course, is that everything is a made up term. Did the Europeans have a word for the New World before they knew it was there? What did they call bacteria, germs, viruses, AIDS, before they figured out what those things were? What's the Biblical Greek or Hebrew word for "gravity" or "solar system"? I'm not concerned that free vocalization is a made up term, because it clearly labels a documentable, real thing. If you want to argue with the LABEL, that's your choice. But the best you can do is dispute the label. The phenomenon described by the label exists, independent of it.

Free vocalization is a fact. It is not my opinion stated as fact. It is, itself, a fact. Arguing it is a waste of time.

The only thing that remains, for anyone so inclined, is spotting the flaw in reasoning that led to the absurd and flat out STUPID conclusion that free vocalization does not exist.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

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.

I give you a fully sourced, fully quoted reference refuting your claim that the medium Albert Le Baron that these men are studying related to the xenoglossia term spoke in a language that was recognized, Samarin references this in his paper, and somehow you can still remain in denial about it?

I read the report. Until you can provide something more than a one-liner and name-calling, you have no argument. Quote Samarin, do something.

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.

No, I explained the legitimate problem with the term that is being used. It is used indiscriminately between people talking with their spirit guides, people faking SIT, and potentially people genuinely SIT.

If you can't have an honest conversation because someone doesn't like the fact that your pet term pretty much is the clearest argument for scientists not being able to distinguish between devil spirit and holy spirit, and that you want to call it an "innate human ability" then that's your problem.

[waysider]

It's really a twofold process.

1. The experience would need to be replicated/verified.

2. The possibility of "sleight of hand" would need to be eliminated.

[Raf]

LeBaron CLAIMED to have tracked down the language. Samarin checked it out. He did not agree. Read the flipping report.

[Raf]

I will no doubt now be accused of expressing my opinion as documented, indisputable truth. Unlike last time, this time that accusation will be true.

It will also withstand any objective scrutiny. Chockfull is attempting to waste my time. I will not take the bait. I am sorry, but you have no credibility with me as an honest searcher into the matter we are discussing. That's also my opinion, and I am stating it as fact. It's CERTAINLY been well-documented on this thread.

[chockfull]

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.

Yes TWI has doctrinal error. This is not much of a shock considering how much practical error we've observed.

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

Well, the important thing to me in this sentence is you didn't fake it. But of course, now, you could be convinced that you did fake it. That would kind of suck. No, I don't believe that it is proof of everything.

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?

I've dealt with defense mechanisms too. In myself and others. In all honesty, the biggest defense mechanisms I see on this thread are Raf's. He summarily rejects accounts where people SIT and others understood. He repeats over and over again his opinion of "modern SIT doesn't produce a language". I call BS. Modern SIT, IN MY OPINION, may be faked, it may be referred to by scientists as a conversation that is psychic between a medium and their spirit guide, or it may be genuine.

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

Why? There was no burden of proof on Paul at the house of Cornelius, or in other accounts of Biblical SIT, so why now automatically has modern SIT produced this need for proving it? There is a dichotomy on this topic in modern Christianity that has been there for a greater period of time than the existence of the Way ministry.

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.

And Jesus should have thrown himself from the pinnacle during Satan's temptation. After all, if God said He would bear him up, then if He wouldn't do it, then where is the integrity in believing that God would have taken care of him? 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?

What if the moon was made of green cheese and all I had to do to convince others of it was to repeat over and over "the moon is made of green cheese", then "this has been proven", and "it's undisputed the evidence in support of that". And I can say this over the course of a 60 page conversation, including those phrases as many times as possible in the same vicinity, then when someone calls me on that, get real upset, say that you never said exactly that and your words are being twisted, and refuse to discuss it logically any more?

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

To me, if I can pray to God and get born again, and pray further and simply SIT without any further instruction, then if I become "willing to accept" that somehow my prayers are BS, and God didn't answer them, then how is the prayer in which I became born again any different?

Edited October 28, 2012 by chockfull

[waysider]

Devil spirits were a handy-dandy default explanation to almost anything that conflicted with Way Theology. Got cancer? Must be devil spirits. Suffering from clinical depression? Must be devil spirits. Unbelievers speaking in tongues? Must be devil spirits. Maybe that subject warrants a whole new thread.

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

"To me, if I can pray to God and get born again, and pray further and simply SIT without any further instruction, then if I become "willing to accept" that somehow my prayers are BS, and God didn't answer them, then how is the prayer in which I became born again any different?"

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

I haven't seen anyone saying your prayers are BS. This thread isn't about your prayers, it's about the validity of speaking in tongues, as a modern practice

[chockfull]

I will no doubt now be accused of expressing my opinion as documented, indisputable truth. Unlike last time, this time that accusation will be true.

It will also withstand any objective scrutiny. Chockfull is attempting to waste my time. I will not take the bait. I am sorry, but you have no credibility with me as an honest searcher into the matter we are discussing. That's also my opinion, and I am stating it as fact. It's CERTAINLY been well-documented on this thread.

Raf, you have been producing rhetoric for 60 pages. And you say I am wasting your time? Look in the mirror.

I have taken time out of my life because of your original name-calling and BS, telling me that I am lying to myself and faking my prayer life. I suspend disbelief, dig into every single article you present and discuss it with you. Some of them are hard to keep straight, as they reference the same studies. There are infinitely more problems, like linguist terms. Like theologian terms, which we did not learn in TWI. You and I for a while kept some of this straight, providing quotes and references.

We have produced three accounts where people experienced SIT and others understood. Two in our small sample space of TWI meetings, from people with reputations that are sound. One from a Catholic account, where the detail shows spontaneity. You summarily reject these, basically saying "I don't believe it". And you keep repeating over and over "modern SIT doesn't produce a language".

I don't believe you are approaching this in an honest fashion. If you were, you would not have repeated yourself over and over stating opinion as fact. I provided ample documentation in even the past 4 pages of you doing exactly that. You don't refute any of it, you just ignore where I point this out. You are doing exactly what was done to us in TWI. Take an opinion, act like it is the truth, and repeat it over and over again. After a certain period of time, you see people repeating your terms. Then you know you have them. Your tactics on this thread dishonestly couched as scientific investigation are no different than the tactics TWI used to repeat things they wanted us to believe over and over again until we believed them.

Now you are acting just like those TWI leaders. Once your BS gets called, you stick your nose up in the air and try to communicate to the readers you are trying to convince that it is far beneath you to respond to criticism. I call that weak. When logic fails, name call and stop responding. That kind of weakness of character speaks for itself on this thread. You think people can't see that? Oh wait, yes you do think you can fool the people. All you need to do is repeat your mantra one more time, right?

Devil spirits were a handy-dandy default explanation to almost anything that conflicted with Way Theology. Got cancer? Must be devil spirits. Suffering from clinical depression? Must be devil spirits. Unbelievers speaking in tongues? Must be devil spirits. Maybe that subject warrants a whole new thread.

The topic of devil spirits in TWI was handled wrong. Yes, common maladies were called devil spirits. However, when I have a guy in a séance saying he is talking to a spirit guide, perhaps you might consider that as evidence?

I haven't seen anyone saying your prayers are BS. This thread isn't about your prayers, it's about the validity of speaking in tongues, as a modern practice

So you don't think Raf said "I'm lying and so is everyone else. Everyone who SIT in modern times is faking it". ??? Go read the first page of this thread again.

[Raf]

I missed the part where I was asked to quote Samarin. I'm tempted. But instead, let me just cute page 50, paragraph 2, the last six lines. You know, the part where he says he was able to compare LeBaron's so-called language to American glossolalia and concluded that they were remarkably different because LeBaron produced a real, human language?

What's that? That's not what he said? Oh. My bad.

[OldSkool]

My opinion is Chock and Raf should cool it. Why ruin the thread when it has some very good information in it and thought provoking points raised by both "sides." My 2 cents anyway.

[Raf]

Chockfull, who are you talking to? I'm not reading your posts anymore, here on out. I'm out of toilet paper.

[chockfull]

I love that American Idol clip! "I spoke in tongues before TWI" = "I made up my own language when I was in 6th grade!"

Waysider, here's a quote from early on in the thread where Raf is equating what happened to me with making up my own language in the 6th grade.

Complete BS. Complete attack. Completely dishonest.

[Raf]

Old School,

Sorry. My apologies to you. But this has gone on too long, and I'm calling BS, and I'm not putting up with it anymore.

I'm being accused of dishonesty by someone whose every chain of logic has been demonstrated to be misrepresentations of my words and of the studies we have been reviewing. To deny the demonstrated, proven existence of an innate human ability that a linguist sympathetic to the possibility of SIT has labeled free vocalization, and then to accuse ME of being in denial, is a hypocrisy I cannot stomach. Chockfull has every right to continue posting and chipping away all he wants. I have no obligation to take his distortions, misrepresentations, incomprehensions and flat out lies seriously.

If that loses the argument for me, I'm comfortable with that.

[chockfull]

I missed the part where I was asked to quote Samarin. I'm tempted. But instead, let me just cute page 50, paragraph 2, the last six lines. You know, the part where he says he was able to compare LeBaron's so-called language to American glossolalia and concluded that they were remarkably different because LeBaron produced a real, human language?

What's that? That's not what he said? Oh. My bad.

Here's the last 6 lines quoted from Samarin p. 50 P2. word for word. This way we don't mix in your opinion and toilet paper.

"In this clinical self-analysis we read that Le Baron had been getting messages from what he called his "psychic automaton" in English; then even carried on conversation. Then one Sunday morning, during one of these private conversations in his hotel room, another "language" replaced English. Because he wrote down many of the messages he got on subsequent occasions, along with their translations (from the same psychic automatism), we are able to compare Le Baron's glossolalia with samples from Americans today. They are, in my opinion, so much alike that we must accept all as manifestations of the same linguistic phenomenon".

So here, we have a medium and his spirit guide talking to him in another language. And Samarin's conclusion? IT'S THE SAME AS SIT. I provided another quote of Le Baron's complete account, where he identified two non-Aryan languages in the message from his spirit guide. Samarin here doesn't mention anything about those languages. Did he check them out? We don't know. All we know is that Samarin states an opinion on it.

Here, we can give Samarin so much more credit than we can his main proponents like Raf. When he is stating his opinion, mostly he uses the words "in my opinion". So in Samarin's opinion a conversation with a devil spirit in another language has to be the same thing as all the other phenomenon. Sorry Samarin. I DON'T ACCEPT YOUR OPINION ON IT. I think a conversation with a devil spirit is far different than SIT.

[OldSkool]

Sorry. My apologies to you. But this has gone on too long, and I'm calling BS, and I'm not putting up with it anymore.

Well, carry on. I'm certainly not offended by any of it. And that's why I addressed both of you guys and not one or the other. Carry on. I will grab my popcorn and enjoy the show!

[Raf]

Free vocalization was just fine as a "given" in this conversation until the threat it posed on the validity of SIT was fully appreciated. Now, suddenly, humans do not have this innate ability. It's a made up term, invented by linguists who don't know the difference between the spirit of God and evil spirits.

We've gone from calling my methods Satanic to calling my SIT Satanic, mind you. On the basis of one person's denial of the obvious.

Bleep that. Sorry.

[chockfull]

I'm being accused of dishonesty by someone whose every chain of logic has been demonstrated to be misrepresentations of my words and of the studies we have been reviewing. To deny the demonstrated, proven existence of an innate human ability that a linguist sympathetic to the possibility of SIT has labeled free vocalization, and then to accuse ME of being in denial, is a hypocrisy I cannot stomach. Chockfull has every right to continue posting and chipping away all he wants. I have no obligation to take his distortions, misrepresentations, incomprehensions and flat out lies seriously.

And just to illustrate my point one more time, here's Raf to the rescue. "To deny the demonstrated, proven existence of an innate human ability that a linguist sympathetic to the possibility of SIT has labeled free vocalization...."

Look, the term labeled "free vocalization" has been proven to include SIT, fakers, and conversations with mediums. Proven. Not opinion. Proven. Now if a rational human being wants to conclude that all 3 of those things are the same and they represent "an innate human ability" then I say that's their problem.

But it certainly isn't anything "proven".

[Raf]

What's that? Samarin concluded it was glossolalia? The same Samarin who said glossolalua NEVER produces a natural language? Well, SHI-NOLA! Thanks for proving you were wrong about LeBaron's claim being a documented case of xenoglossia, Chockfull!

[chockfull]

Free vocalization was just fine as a "given" in this conversation until the threat it posed on the validity of SIT was fully appreciated. Now, suddenly, humans do not have this innate ability. It's a made up term, invented by linguists who don't know the difference between the spirit of God and evil spirits.

Free vocalization was just fine as a "given" in this conversation until I started reading closely what was meant by the definition. The closer I looked, the sketchier the definition looked.

The fact that you were happier when it was a "given" in the conversation than you are now calling it into question to me illustrates that you are really not seeking for the truth here. You are seeking for your premise to be proven, that everyone like you was and is faking it SIT in modern times. And you will sacrifice definitions, accounts, terms, whatever to end up justified on that in your own mind.

But honest investigation? Nowhere near.

Rationalization? Pretty much fits what I see in that psychological term.

[waysider]

"I think a conversation with a devil spirit is far different than SIT."

Put the devil spirit thing on the back-burner for the moment and consider that a conversation requires...drum roll, please....language....and that's the crux of the matter...whatever SIT is, be it good spirits, bad spirits or no spirits, it simply lacks the components that qualify it as "language".

[chockfull]

What's that? Samarin concluded it was glossolalia? The same Samarin who said glossolalua NEVER produces a natural language? Well, SHI-NOLA! Thanks for proving you were wrong about LeBaron's claim being a documented case of xenoglossia, Chockfull!

Do you mind untwisting the little logic going on in your skull here that produced this mini-victory dance celebration that reminds me of the Iraqi minister of defense?

Samarin is labeling conversations with devil spirits, people making up gibberish languages, and modern SIT THE SAME THING. And saying in his opinion we should accept them all as the same thing. Note his use of the word "opinion" there. I know it's hard for you. I know you really want him to use the word "proven".

"I think a conversation with a devil spirit is far different than SIT."

Put the devil spirit thing on the back-burner for the moment and consider that a conversation requires...drum roll, please....language....and that's the crux of the matter...whatever SIT is, be it good spirits, bad spirits or no spirits, it simply lacks the components that qualify it as "language".

Hmmm. The Catholic account where the guy came up and spoke Persian to the SIT speaker expecting him to understand because he spoke perfect Persian in his tongue didn't seem to think the tongue lacked components that qualify it as a "language".