SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

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.

I submit, sir, that you have isolated the flaw in your logic. And lo and behold, it lies in YOUR reading comprehension skills.

Somehow, this does not surprise me.

You constructed a strawnan. You misinterpreted and/or misrepresented Poythress AND Samarin. You knocked down the strawman and, on that basis, declared yourself to have demonstrated that you really DO have 11 fingers.

But you don't. And you'll look like an idiot if you keep insisting that you do.

You. Have. Ten. Fingers.

Free vocalization as an innate human ability IS real. Any logical chain that leads you to conclude otherwise is false by virtue of its having led you to a demonstrably false conclusion.

The problem is yours, and you alone are the one who has been less than honest about it.

[chockfull]

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!

OldSkool, I get a little bent when I see people using the same tactics as I saw used in TWI leadership.

Repeating their position, which is opinion, as fact over and over and over page after page. It's like TWI indoctrination. Sketchy research, made-up words, and when their BS gets called out by logic, resorting to name-calling and an arrogant look-down-the-nose attitude being unwilling to converse on the topic any more.

To me, it reminds me of trying to have a conversation with Rosalie on the topic of debt.

It tees me off.

[OldSkool]

To me, it reminds me of trying to have a conversation with Rosalie on the topic of debt.

Any conversation with that old hag is enough to tee me off.

[Raf]

It is a fiction to call your challenges logic, Chockfull. Your challenges have been anything but logical.

But I suppose you are entitled to express your opinion that you are presenting a logical position as fact. I'm not gonna whine about it.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

Free vocalization as an innate human ability IS real. Any logical chain that leads you to conclude otherwise is false by virtue of its having led you to a demonstrably false conclusion.

Hey, I can make up a term too. Let's call it "free mouthnoiseization". Since it's my term, I can both declare it as an "innate human ability" and define it to mean whatever I want.

I say it applies to discussions with spirit guides, arguments with relatives, making up child-like languages (and I will include pig latin because I like it), and blowing bubbles in a swimming pool IF you are using your vocal chords.

So from here on out, because I am not only so spiritual for making up the term "free mouthnoiseization", but I am also so scientific, I am going to refuse to discuss SIT any more without re-labeling the term "free mouthnoiseization". Free mouthnoiseization has been proven as an innate human ability. And any logical conclusion that you arrive at that leads you to conclude otherwise is a demonstrably false conclusion.

:confused:

[chockfull]

It is a fiction to call your challenges logic, Chockfull. Your challenges have been anything but logical.

But I suppose you are entitled to express your opinion that you are presenting a logical position as fact. I'm not gonna whine about it.

Socrates told Plato at the beginning of their philosophical discussion "if you are I are going to converse together, we must first define our terms".

If the terms in a logical premise are problematic, then the premise itself is problematic. I see using a term as the major descriptive noun in a logical premise that is imprecise to the extent that it allows polar opposite experiences under the same definition as problematic. Thus I see the major premise it helps define as problematic.

I can see where that might be a challenge to you with what you consider "logic".

[Raf]

You're not a stupid person. But you're being stupid. You're derailing this thread with nonsense.

LeBaron did not operate a devil spirit. Had he produced a language, I might have been willing to consider it a demonstration of demonic power. But he did not produce a language. But I do not go hunting for supernatural explanations where there is no evidence of any.

If anything, it should frighten the bejeezus out of you to realize that experts trained in linguistics cannot distinguish what is produced in SIT from what is produced by demonic influences.

My conclusion lines up with Samarin's: you're both doing the same thing. Exercising an innate human ability to bring forth something that sounds like a language to you but isn't.

[Raf]

I agree, by the way. If we are going to have a conversation, we need to define our terms. A failure to agree on fundamentals nullifies the very opportunity to have a conversation, by definition.

I say free vocalization exists. You dispute that. No conversation between us on this subject is even possible until you recognize how bone-headedly wrong you are on that subject.

[chockfull]

You're not a stupid person. But you're being stupid. You're derailing this thread with nonsense.

LeBaron did not operate a devil spirit.

Wow. Le Baron, who describes his experience as talking to a "psychic automatism", you are saying "did not operate a devil spirit". And you're not saying "in my opinion". So this is proven, right?

Have you actually read the interaction? It reads like a conversation back and forth between two people in English. Le Baron's account, which was written. Him talking to his "psychic automatism", and it answering him back. Then on one day, it changed to being another language, but the automatism translated it into English for Le Baron. He wrote down the words later, and said they were from two known languages.

This type of experience is the polar opposite of anyone saying "lo shanta" in a prayer meeting.

I believe this account shows Le Baron had a spirit guide, which was devil spirit. It was one he was used to having a conversation with as a separate and distinct entity from himself.

But believe what you will. I suppose the rejection of ALL THINGS in the spirit realm is one way to deal with post TWI integration.

Had he produced a language, I might have been willing to consider it a demonstration of demonic power. But he did not produce a language. But I do not go hunting for supernatural explanations where there is no evidence of any.

Too narrow. There was a conversation back and forth between two "people". It was in English. Then one morning it was largely in another language, except after a while the other "person" translated it. The first person (Le Baron) wrote down some of the words, not the entire messages. He then identified the languages involved. However, this experience was different than modern accounts of glossolalia, and Samarin notes this in the opening p. 50 of the article.

If anything, it should frighten the bejeezus out of you to realize that experts trained in linguistics cannot distinguish what is produced in SIT from what is produced by demonic influences.

Why? It's highly likely that they were not born again. I am, so labeling an experience conversing with a spirit guide to me is a lot different than SIT. I don't have the bejeezus frightened out of me. Even if I was there in the room, I'd note it, and label the information coming from the conversation as questionable as to it's contribution to my overall well-being.

I guess I won't recount to you the time I had going to a séance with a girl friend of mine, sitting quietly in a chair and SIT to myself without saying a word, and having the medium go absolutely bat-$h1t crazy saying she couldn't read anything. Her German shepherd was pacing back and forth whining at me. Then we left, looked at each other, and said "wow, that was weird". Now from a spiritual perspective, her dog housed her spirit guide, the "airwaves" between them was disturbed by God via me spiritually, and the result was clouded.

My conclusion lines up with Samarin's: you're both doing the same thing. Exercising an innate human ability to bring forth something that sounds like a language to you but isn't.

Well, if you don't want to acknowledge or deal with things in the spirit realm, I guess I see how you would have that perspective. Maybe Samarin too.

[Raf]

You have not established that anything spiritual has taken place!

Establish that something spiritual has taken place, and then we can argue about its source.

LeBaron's ability to produce made up garbage that is not a known human language, despite his self-serving testimony to the contrary, does not prove he was energized by devil spirits.

HOW GULLIBLE ARE YOU!?

LeBaron was a CON MAN!

[Raf]

If LeBaron had produced a genuine language, based on the account he gave, I would have little choice but to label his story and process demonic.

But he did not produce a language. Or if he did, he failed to convince a linguist who was aware not only that this was a claim of xenoglossia, but EXACTLY which language(s) were allegedly produced! I know, the linguist is incompetent to identify a language, even when he knows precisely which language he's looking for.

For reals.

[chockfull]

But he did not produce a language. Or if he did, he failed to convince a linguist who was aware not only that this was a claim of xenoglossia, but EXACTLY which language(s) were allegedly produced! I know, the linguist is incompetent to identify a language, even when he knows precisely which language he's looking for.

The account itself did not have the entire conversation in another language recorded. By Le Baron's account, he wrote "some of the terms" down on a piece of paper, then looked them up later to identify the language. I don't believe Samarin ever saw the terms recognized to corroborate that they were or were not known languages.

For reals.

OK, for reals. Let me ask you this - do you believe that there are really spirit beings out there that are devil spirits? Do you believe it is possible to be possessed?

HOW GULLIBLE ARE YOU!?

LeBaron was a CON MAN!

You know, I'm really glad we are having this part of the conversation. It is showing a side to your spiritual beliefs that obviously is influencing your position that I never identified before, and neither did other readers if I had to guess.

It's good that it's coming out.

[Raf]

I would subject Satanic claims of xenoglossia to the same burden of proof as I subject glossolalia. Neither has ever proved to produce anything that cannot be replicated by a human being acting under no supernatural pretenses.

[Raf]

More misrepresentation of what I'm saying.

I refuse to participate in your Inquisition.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

Chock said:

"Socrates told Plato at the beginning of their philosophical discussion "if you are I are going to converse together, we must first define our terms".

It's interesting that you should mention Plato because he, himself, experienced what we refer to as speaking in tongues, many years before the time of Christ.

He, too, attributed it to spiritual intervention, not that it gives any credence to that particular aspect.

http://brainblogger.com/2010/02/07/speaking-in-tongues-a-neural-snapshot/

[chockfull]

More misrepresentation of what I'm saying.

I refuse to participate in your Inquisition.

Wow - try to hold it together here Raf. I'm not misrepresenting anything you said. I just am asking you questions. Most modern Christians would accept Le Baron's account as possession. Not just the charismatic ones. Yet you are violently reacting and calling me names like gullible.

You have to admit, it does lead you to ask questions concerning bias there.

So once again, do you believe possession is possible? If so, under what circumstances? Other readers who Raf is not upset at, does this seem like an Inquisition to you?

[Raf]

Did I say there is no spirit realm? Did I say there's no such thing as godly or satanic influences?

No.

What I said was, before I'm going to attribute a phenomenon to God or Satan, I am going to rule out any natural explanation that fits the facts.

In the case of SIT, as well as alleged xenoglossia, free vocalization fits the facts.

LeBaron was a con man. Had he produced a language, I would conclude he was demonically possessed. The evidence leads me to believe he was a con man.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

LeBaron was a con man. Had he produced a language, I would conclude he was demonically possessed. The evidence leads me to believe he was a con man.

He must have been quite an exceptional one, then. He convinced a leading psychologist of his time, William James, to submit his account to the Society for Psychic Research and stake his reputation on his conclusion that something spiritual was going on. That is why we can read it today.

[WordWolf]

It is occasionally disturbing for me to discover the heights to which some Christians will elevate

the reputation of satanic powers in the absence of anything approaching credible evidence.

I've had Christians claim that possession and things like that can produce Hollywood-like effects,

people floating around rooms, people slamming into walls, people transforming and producing

functional claws, reaching into someone's guts and removing a curse, etc.

I once was aware of an incident that happened at my old high school. One teacher there taught for her

entire professional career. I met someone who was in her very first year of teaching, and someone

who was in her very last year of teaching. I sat in her class, and of course knew other people that

did so.

Once, the guy who sat in her FIRST year told about an incident DURING his class.

The students were unruly, and refused to settle down. A few threw paper airplanes.

Apparently, she raised her voice like them, and threw a paper airplane like them, and thought

she could reason with them- how do you feel with someone else throwing a paper airplane at you,

and yelling. It didn't work. The next day, same class, the principal of the time came in and

asked her to come out into the hall to speak with him. That was the last that student ever saw

of her. Decades later, his son went to the same school and got the same teacher.

"This is the crazy woman I told you about!" She even recognized him.

Michael (the Dad) went in for parent-teacher conferences.

"Oh, I remember you, Stanley. What year?" (She forgot his name but knew he was a student from

long ago.)

About 2-3 years later, I heard from a different student that they'd heard that she'd been

taken out of the class for jumping on her desk, ripping her clothes off, and barking like a dog.

I corrected them in detail.

What was the difference between the 2 accounts?

Someone who wasn't there added lots of dramatic detail to what actually happened.

(Probably several someones over several retellings.)

I've seen 20/20, where John Stossel convinced a voodoo witch doctor to put a death curse on

him (Stossel.) They filmed the whole thing. The guy had a HECK of an act. He put lots of drama

into it. The guy put forth his best effort into it. That was back in the 80s, and Stossell's still

alive as of this posting.

There's lots of reasons to hear wild accounts of dramatic supernatural things happening nowadays.

Sometimes people were there and choose to lie because it's a LOT more interesting.

(That happens with different types of eyewitness accounts of EVERYTHING.)

More often, what they saw was what they THOUGHT they saw. Prime an audience to believe you're

going to do something supernatural, then do something and produce a physical effect.

Many gullible people will think it was supernatural. I've seen mind-readers who used hidden

microphones, curse-breakers who palmed an object and "made it appear", and other things.

It's all based on how good a stage-show they did, and how gullible the audience was.

vpw was uneducated in general, at least compared to a lot of us.

He saw a number of the same things. He either was gullible and uneducated enough to think

they were all actually supernatural, or he knew it was all faked and lied to us in order to

get us to fear and circle the wagons closer.

=========================

Religion seems to be a fertile ground for those who produce such effects, or who claim to

produce such effects, and for people who believe they did it.

There's a man (dead now) who claimed he received a special set of gold plates from God

Almighty. He claimed they were written in "reformed Egyptian". He was able to read them

due to some miracle involving some miraculous stone he wore in his hat, but that the plates

were actually in Egyptian, and claimed he sent them to a linguist who confirmed it.

Naturally, he refused to let anyone SEE the plates other than that.

When the linguist was asked, he said he saw the plates, and their contents were a mix of

Egyptian and a few other things, and that it was nonsense, gobbledegook, words strung together

from one language or another and failing to make coherent sentences even if all translated

into English.

Some people to this day still believe in these gold plates.

There's a man (dead now) who claimed he spoke by operation of some spirit, and produced

a specific, current, obscure language he did not speak-proof of the supernatural origin of

the words. When an actual linguist looked over his claim, he concluded there was no such

production of words in that language.

In other words, the man made wild claims of the supernatural, insisted he did it, and insisted

it was real- and an expert confirmed the opposite, that he made things up instead.

Some people will still believe the man spoke in some other language and that it had a

supernatural origin. Everyone else will conclude he faked it and lied a lot.

Whether he really thought it was real, or if he knew it was a fake, is a different subject

and has nothing to do with whether it was real or a fake.

[Raf]

Tee hee hee.

What about the Society for Psychic Research leads you to believe it has the slightest interest in DIScrediting such claims?

[WordWolf]

He must have been quite an exceptional one, then. He convinced a leading psychologist of his time, William James, to submit his account to the Society for Psychic Research and stake his reputation on his conclusion that something spiritual was going on. That is why we can read it today.

If true, that tells us nothing.

Ever read some of the other accounts for things submitted before the Society for Psychic Research?

The organization was a product of its times. "Educated" people of that day were expected to

discard all claims of anything religious, devout or holy.

They were instead expected to make leaps of faith concerning the "psychic" or anything involving

a "medium". All such claims were submitted to rooms of people who WANTED to believe them and

prepared themselves TO believe them.

That's why Houdini was such a oontroversial figure in his time. He called them all on their

fakery the same way "the Amazing Randi" does nowadays. (Where do you think Randi got the idea?)

And Psychology has had many respectable people in the field down the centuries- and a number of

fools and fanatics, just like any other field. That A Psychologist said something was true would

make me look into it, but I'd have to evaluate the evidence. I won't make a leap of faith about

it before doing that.

EXCEPTIONAL fakers and charlatans have been around for centuries. Stage magician Dan Korem has

put forth an "argument" that Pharoah's magicians in Exodus were ALL stage magicians, and gave

examples of how to do what they did using simple tricks and simple tools, dressed up as

supernatural. Looking it over, I think he was right.

[WordWolf]

Wow - try to hold it together here Raf. I'm not misrepresenting anything you said. I just am asking you questions. Most modern Christians would accept Le Baron's account as possession. Not just the charismatic ones. Yet you are violently reacting and calling me names like gullible.

You have to admit, it does lead you to ask questions concerning bias there.

So once again, do you believe possession is possible? If so, under what circumstances? Other readers who Raf is not upset at, does this seem like an Inquisition to you?

They'd agree he was CLAIMING possession.

But with no other evidence, any good actor could produce the same results.

Here's what we got:

-We have a man who claimed to be in supernatural contact with something. (Anyone can CLAIM anything.)

-He carried on a monologue that looked like a dialogue-2 voices, 2 methods of speaking, 2 attitudes, etc.

(ANY actor should be able to pull that one off. I've pulled that one off, and it was by request.

And I'm really not much of an actor.)

-He claimed to have produced a foreign language. (Anyone can CLAIM anything.)

-He produced some non-English words. (Anyone can do that, too.)

-When the non-English words were examined, they were determined to be nonsense and NOT the claimed language.

(Anyone can produce nonsense.)

So, there is no need to suppose possession here. Any actor could manage this. The only difference is,

the actor does it on stage, and the conman does it offstage.

Never begin by supposing some fantastical result happened. First, suppose something everyday happened,

then see if you can eliminate all the normal possibilities. After they're gone, THEN you can suppose

something fantastical happened- and you'll be more sure of your answer.

twi pulled this all the time. Right after vpw died, geer knew about the conferences the top guys at hq

had- and they ALL began IMMEDIATELY thinking Divine Revelation told him.

Then one guy in the room laughed and stopped them- he had spoken to geer on the phone.

Nobody suspected either someone informing him (the obvious answer) or something like him bugging

the rooms (also a mundane answer but less likely.)

I wouldn't be proud of that leap if I was them.

[chockfull]

EXCEPTIONAL fakers and charlatans have been around for centuries. Stage magician Dan Korem has

put forth an "argument" that Pharoah's magicians in Exodus were ALL stage magicians, and gave

examples of how to do what they did using simple tricks and simple tools, dressed up as

supernatural. Looking it over, I think he was right.

Certainly one tactic or approach can be a complete state of unbelief concerning anything supernatural. And unfortunately it is one I encounter far too often among ex-TWI people. The psychological trauma from being in the organization so pervades their entire mind and belief system that to obtain relief the mind utilizes a defense mechanism and summarily rejects anything not based in the senses.

Look - the psychics of that day pretty much all described their psychic powers as "spiritual gifts from God". Were they charlatans, were they possessed, or were they a combination of both? I guess you get into the same kind of dilemma there that you do talking about SIT in general. Was it a "genuine" devil spirit, or a "fake" devil spirit?

I mean for the sake of this argument to me it would be better to say "who cares?" and remove séances from your sample space just to eliminate the possibility. But I'm finding all sorts of scientific proof related issues with these approaches. You ASSUME your own conclusion that everyone is faking it, thus lump all the occurrences including devil-inspired, God-inspired, faker-inspired under the same label of "free vocalization".

I guess my conclusion is that I haven't read an unbiased study of this topic yet.

[chockfull]

twi pulled this all the time. Right after vpw died, geer knew about the conferences the top guys at hq

had- and they ALL began IMMEDIATELY thinking Divine Revelation told him.

Then one guy in the room laughed and stopped them- he had spoken to geer on the phone.

Nobody suspected either someone informing him (the obvious answer) or something like him bugging

the rooms (also a mundane answer but less likely.)

I wouldn't be proud of that leap if I was them.

Yes the fact that TWI leaders who haven't received revelation from God ever since they sold their soul to be a false prophet and run things by spying, deceit, and informant use is sickening. It was also something I saw in-residence consistently, and saw operated in TWI leadership consistently through decades.

And if people want to use that to live life completely by the five senses and reject everything spiritual, then there is absolutely nothing I can do about it, including reason with them.

But I'm not going to let them, or fatalistic logic, dictate my faith.

There was a movie made about this a while ago, starring Steve Martin, called "Leap of Faith". Steve was a con man working the revival tent scene to make money. He faked everything. Then a little boy got healed in the midst of this, and Martin's character couldn't cope.

I guess in the ex-TWI GSC version of this, the boy dies of polio and Steve Martin goes on to bilk millions more?

Sorry guys, although I see the dark side of humanity, my faith in God is yet still greater. You guys believe what you want.

[chockfull]

Tee hee hee.

What about the Society for Psychic Research leads you to believe it has the slightest interest in DIScrediting such claims?

And what does that have to do with anything? Samarin himself could have not included that account on the basis of the source being biased. But he didn't. In fact, he chose the psychic studies as the only ones he DID reference in detail.

My challenge to their inclusion is that unless you can PROVE they were faking, you are studying something else, not glossolalia.