SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[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.

Why would you rule out genuine SIT there?

I mean I agree with you that he was possessed and the spirit guide likely DID produce a language, then translate it, and then Le Baron identified it. I can't prove that, as Samarin or ANY OTHER LINGUIST did not study the messages that Le Baron wrote down, only read about them. Le Baron could still be lying about it. However, he was a known psychic, and conversations with his "automatism" were present for just about anyone to experience.

You see, this is a sample space problem.

Any account I bring up that falls short of God performing a miracle right in the scientist's lab and there having the person doing the speaking and the one understanding it both present indefinitely for questioning by anyone who doesn't believe runs into the account being summarily dismissed and it stated "I don't believe it".

Other accounts could be genuine SIT, or a faker, or devil spirit possession. No discrimination between them, and the scientists all lump them into the same category. Their categorization is their proof. Their invention of their own terms to describe it - "free vocalization" - that is their proof.

I mean, I'm sticking with my own proof. "Free mouthnoiseization". It's an innate human ability. All those guys who claim to be SIT, they are just "free mouthnoising it". And you can't prove they are not. After all, they fit the definition I just made up.

[geisha779]

Old Skool.....fair warning!!

In this one JAL tells us exactly how to SIT or how to fail. . . . if we just open our mouths and formulate the words, he assures us we won't be making it up. BTW, he is eerily calm in this one. He has even brought friends along this time to reinforce the reality. He tells us to be bold. Oh and they all go for it in this one. They are all SIT at once. Pretty interesting. JAL SIT in this one. Is he possessed, faking it, or is it real? Maybe Memorex! (I am dating myself with that one)

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iSiH37tVXkU" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

I didn't see anything different in this video than I remember from PFAL or TWI.... it has been awhile though.

Edited October 28, 2012 by geisha779

[Raf]

Look, Samarin wrote a study on glossolalia. In writing the study, he seeks to distinguish it from xenoglossia. Xenoglossia supposedly produces a language. Samarin investigates the claim and, based on the information he has, concludes no difference in the end product of an alleged non Christian xenoglossist and an alleged Christian glossolalist.

So, no, I reject your demand for proof on the grounds that I have already done so to any extent I am able to.

The difference between you and I, apparently, is that when someone claims to have operated the power of God, your first question is Which God? while mine is What power?

A failure to answer my question renders your question moot.

[geisha779]

Why does it have to be one or the other....tongues are not real so God is dead?

[chockfull]

The difference between you and I, apparently, is that when someone claims to have operated the power of God, your first question is Which God? while mine is What power?

No, the difference between you and I is when someone claims to have operated the power of God, my reaction is to hear the story to investigate the detail of it. Your reaction - "I don't believe it, unless it took place in a lab with a known scientist and the people involved are available in perpetuity for questioning about their account and background".

I mean there was a time in Bible history where God put up with people needing to see proof of the miraculous before believing Him. He accommodated Elijah and the prophets of Baal bringing down fire to consume a waterlogged offering.

But when Jesus Christ came, that changed. He was the sign. And he told others signs that would follow them that believed in him.

[geisha779]

But when Jesus Christ came, that changed. He was the sign. And he told others signs that would follow them that believed in him.

And they did follow.....the church was established, and the sign of tongues ushered in each new group into the church. Jesus told the truth.....

[chockfull]

Why does it have to be one or the other....tongues are not real so God is dead?

Why do people have such a vested interest in stating publicly that they used to be a fake, but now they aren't and that you should really, really believe them?

And they did follow.....the church was established, and the sign of tongues ushered in each new group into the church. Jesus told the truth.....

And they still do follow. Jesus isn't dead.

[waysider]

Man! I feel like I'm trying to make myself believe in Santa Claus again. I guess when you're a kid, you hold out hope as long as you can that the jolly old man is real.

[chockfull]

Man! I feel like I'm trying to make myself believe in Santa Claus again. I guess when you're a kid, you hold out hope as long as you can that the jolly old man is real.

And when you're a liar, I guess you keep lying no matter what. I guess it's not really a surprise to me that people who lied about SIT when they were in TWI are now lying about it not being available.

[Raf]

I got the impression that Samarin DID read LeBaron's xenoglossia, not hat ge merely read ABOUT them. There was a different account in which he reached a similar conclusion on shakier grounds, and said so.

Had Samarin been investigating xenoglossia, I'd have expected more detail. It's enough to know that no claim of xenoglossia has ever withstood scrutiny. None.

And when you're a liar, I guess you keep lying no matter what. I guess it's not really a surprise to me that people who lied about SIT when they were in TWI are now lying about it not being available.

You can CALL it a lie. But that's stating your opinion as fact. Some people on this thread don't take too kindly to that sort of thing.

FYI: I never said SIT is not available. I do not know. I believe if it were not available, that would explain why no one seems to be producing it. But I could be right and SIT could still be available. It would just mean we'd need to learn how. I have no idea.

[waysider]

And when you're a liar, I guess you keep lying no matter what. I guess it's not really a surprise to me that people who lied about SIT when they were in TWI are now lying about it not being available.

I never felt like I was lying about speaking in tongues when I was in The Way. (TIP and prophesy are a whole other issue.) If I told you I believe it's currently available (in the Biblical sense), that would be lying. I don't believe it is. On the other hand, I don't think it can hurt you either, in and of itself. What can hurt you, though, is maintaining unrealistic expectations for its effectiveness. This is one disadvantage I have experienced personally. Too many times I took unreasonable risks with my personal health and safety, thinking the so-called law of believing and speaking in tongues would cover me. I had some bad experiences but, I'm still alive. Other people who tried this approach weren't as fortunate as me. Sometimes a seemingly harmless placebo can kill you if it's the genuine medication you really need.

[Raf]

No, the difference between you and I is when someone claims to have operated the power of God, my reaction is to hear the story to investigate the detail of it.

With respect, you don't investigate crap. Investigation by definition involves skepticism of a claim until it is proved. You assume the claim to be true and weigh the religious implications. You don't investigate a damn thing, because you corner yourself by defining everything in such a way as to make investigation impossible.

All one has to do to convince you an extraordinary supernatural act has taken place is claim it, and suddenly you will demand others DISprove the claim.

No. Prove the claim.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

I got the impression that Samarin DID read LeBaron's xenoglossia, not hat ge merely read ABOUT them. There was a different account in which he reached a similar conclusion on shakier grounds, and said so.

Well, see if he brings it up in the book you ordered. And please post quotes. I didn't get the read that the actual conversation was recorded, just Le Baron talking about it. Which would more support him faking it than if the conversation itself was recorded. I'll read over it again and see if I can find and online reference. I found it in the library.

Had Samarin been investigating xenoglossia, I'd have expected more detail. It's enough to know that no claim of xenoglossia has ever withstood scrutiny. None.

On xenoglossia, I still can't get past the definition. I've read about 4 contradictory ones now, including the first reference which was in conjunction with automatic writing. That first reference has really nothing at all to do with SIT, so I'm not really sure what to do with that term.

You can CALL it a lie. But that's stating your opinion as fact. Some people on this thread don't take too kindly to that sort of thing.

Look, this spiritual stuff - and proving it. I see it proven in my life on a consistent basis. I can't prove it to you, and IMO that's for the same reason God isn't going to come down in flames and consume an offering the prophets of Baal have water soaked. It's A.D. not B.C. meaning "after the death of Jesus", not "Before Christ".

But yes, in terms of our public conversation, that would be as you state presenting my opinion as fact.

FYI: I never said SIT is not available. I do not know. I believe if it were not available, that would explain why no one seems to be producing it. But I could be right and SIT could still be available. It would just mean we'd need to learn how. I have no idea.

Well if TWI was instructing you how to tie your shoes it wouldn't surprise me to see your right ankle being worn around your left ear. And because of the controversy we are highlighting I would not recommend to send you to another human being on the face of the earth for instruction on this. So in my opinion, this is to be worked out between an individual believer and God. Pray. Ask about it. Read. Study. And if you find yourself one day where your prayer life takes a turn that's different, maybe try it rather than immediately ruling it out or associating it with TWI doctrine. If you feel like singing when praying, sing. Or dancing. Or punching a heavy bag with mitts. Or throwing back your shoulders and screaming loud outside with nobody around. Or crying. Or yelling at God. Will all of that get you to SIT? I don't know. But IMO SIT is just a prayer thing. No more. No less. Just develop a relationship, and be a human. That's more important than speaking perfect words of praise in high Klingon ever will be.

[chockfull]

With respect, you don't investigate crap. Investigation by definition involves skepticism of a claim until it is proved. You assume the claim to be true and weigh the religious implications. You don't investigate a damn thing, because you corner yourself by defining everything in such a way as to make investigation impossible.

I don't immediately assume the claims to be true. I just think it highly likely that a medium who says they are talking to a spirit guide, who has others observe voice and accent changes during a séance, probably is. Unless he is also a ventriloquist. Then he's probably not.

My discussion of "proof" is always couched in the current tools we have to use in our day and time. These are the statistical tools of math that are used in the scientific method and (many times) involve hypothesis testing (the official technical stats definition). In hypothesis testing "proof" is described in terms of what is called a "confidence interval". Scientists select the "confidence interval" with which they can prove something (usually 95% or 90%). This also is described in terms of "standard deviation". I had one stats teacher in college that would every day bring in a statistical study from current news, and comment on the mathematical accuracy of it or the issues with it. I think in one semester I saw a representation of 2 or 3 only that she said was completely mathematically accurate. I would say about 60% or even 70% of the cases she examined there were problems with the sample space being pointed out. Those methods are used today to prove studies in the softer sciences like psychology or sociology. Also, for the FDA in drug approval.

What do I mean by all of that? That 100% proof doesn't happen. 95% proof happens as the most common measure. And even with 95% proof, you're not really certain, you just have a certain confidence interval with the data given. So I tend to look at accounts and individual records with a view towards what type of confidence I could have in asserting their story, fact, presentation.

In this discussion I find more than the normal amount of problem with studies. Terms are defined such that opposite spectrum experiences are defined under the same descriptive term, and then that is called an "innate human ability", which circularly defines the term with the outcome you are looking for.

I see proving your side as next to impossible as you have to prove a negative that the tongue sample for every person taken has never been understood at any time on Earth. Proving the positive or my side is so much easier, but all it would require is God consuming an offering with fire like against the prophets of Baal in the Old Testament, and I have verses where Jesus describes of people asking "what sign is given that this is true?" and him answering that he was the only sign they'd ever see.

So I don't think we have or are going to get very far proving anything. And that's why it really gets me bent when you falsely claim things to be proven.

[chockfull]

I never felt like I was lying about speaking in tongues when I was in The Way. (TIP and prophesy are a whole other issue.) If I told you I believe it's currently available (in the Biblical sense), that would be lying. I don't believe it is. On the other hand, I don't think it can hurt you either, in and of itself.

Well, I said what I believe about it above. As far as instruction from the Bible, I would be at a complete loss as to how to explain it to you guys scripturally like instructing on how to do it. I mean I don't see how I could and avoid all the tentacles of TWI doctrine on it, which would probably sour the experience to everyone. We need to avoid the leaven of the Pharisees, not start another splinter ministry that can produce 80% counterfeits of Wierwille's ministry. Or stated this way, I think it occurs naturally to believers in prayer.

What can hurt you, though, is maintaining unrealistic expectations for its effectiveness. This is one disadvantage I have experienced personally. Too many times I took unreasonable risks with my personal health and safety, thinking the so-called law of believing and speaking in tongues would cover me. I had some bad experiences but, I'm still alive. Other people who tried this approach weren't as fortunate as me. Sometimes a seemingly harmless placebo can kill you if it's the genuine medication you really need.

So a snake oil salesman sold us SIT as a snake oil remedy. Step right up, ladies and gentlemen. Here's something you can do that will cure all your ailments. If you have a bad foot, SIT. Cavity, SIT. Lack of sleep, SIT. You don't even need sleep if you SIT, as it builds up your inner man. You won't get sick if you SIT. Problems in your marriage? Don't talk to your spouse, just SIT. Challenges at work? SIT. With relationships with your boss? SIT. All you have to do is SIT to make sure you're spiritually big and strong. Then you'll be able to lift huge miracles with your little pinky, just like Ah-nold.

No, a better approach would be to state that SIT replaces NOTHING, except for maybe a little of your time praying with your understanding. It's a token, it's a down payment on a better future. It's a little taste of a connection by spirit now that all of life will be based on when Jesus comes back. It's what God left in place of the ashes of a water-soaked offering to Baal.

Is this all opinion as it pertains to the scientific method and statistical analysis? Sure it is. Or it's speaking what's in my heart on the topic, from study, knowledge, practice, experience. It's what I've got to share.

[Raf]

I can understand qualms about the definition of xenoglossia, and based on what i can see of the definition, i will no longer say that glossolalia should produce xenoglossia. I will say that glossolalia and xenoglossolalia are redundant terms. But understanding appears to be implied in xenoglossia, where it is explicitly denied in glossolalia. Nonetheless, our ability to draw conclusions from that is limited. A glossolalist who produced a recognized language would be presumed xenoglossic and treated as such. You and I disagree on why no such cases have emerged. I believe the linguists have checked the phonemic strata of the glossas and repeatedly determined, with exceptions, that the phonemes match the native language of the speaker. The exceptions are attributable to the speaker's exposure to other languages (like me with Chanukkah). This is not merely Samarin's finding. At best, he hints at it. But it appears to account for the findings of numerous other researchers.

You believe the linguists haven't detected foreign languages because they are so incompetent at identifying language they would be unable to spot one even when they're explicitly told what language to look for. I cannot concur with such a dismissal of their studies.

But i will repeat what I've said before: you cannot do everything in your power to make a testable claim intestable and then draw conclusions from my inability to prove my case. It's hypocritical. I do believe i am entitled to draw conclusions based on your inability to prove your case. In my opinion, proof of your case should be the rule, not the exception. But hey, you can disagree in peace.

You cannot disagree in peace with the existence of free vocalization as an innate human ability. That's just not negotiable. Unlike free mouthvoiceization, free vocalization actually describes something real, true, documentable and repeatable. The phony term you made up describes nothing real. It is not worth debating.

[Raf]

So I don't think we have or are going to get very far proving anything. And that's why it really gets me bent when you falsely claim things to be proven.

This is getting so flipping tedious.

I have stated my opinion as fact as often as you have. I have never referred to something as proved or documented that was not, and I would just as soon you STOP LYING ABOUT THAT. It's bulls hit, I've called you on it repeatedly. Enough.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

I can understand qualms about the definition of xenoglossia, and based on what i can see of the definition, i will no longer say that glossolalia should produce xenoglossia. I will say that glossolalia and xenoglossolalia are redundant terms. But understanding appears to be implied in xenoglossia, where it is explicitly denied in glossolalia. Nonetheless, our ability to draw conclusions from that is limited. A glossolalist who produced a recognized language would be presumed xenoglossic and treated as such. You and I disagree on why no such cases have emerged. I believe the linguists have checked the phonemic strata of the glossas and repeatedly determined, with exceptions, that the phonemes match the native language of the speaker. The exceptions are attributable to the speaker's exposure to other languages (like me with Chanukkah). This is not merely Samarin's finding. At best, he hints at it. But it appears to account for the findings of numerous other researchers.

The debatable conclusion to me on that topic is whether or not an "accent" in speaking another language (like Texican Spanish for example) would account for minor variations or vocabulary possibilities in like consonant selection or not. I saw Samarin try to prove that, then concede that his consonant tree would also hold true for six other languages.

You believe the linguists haven't detected foreign languages because they are so incompetent at identifying language they would be unable to spot one even when they're explicitly told what language to look for. I cannot concur with such a dismissal of their studies.

Not really. I believe no linguist has understood the tongue natively in a setting yet. Or heard a language they were familiar with. And there are a lot of living and dead languages. The incompetence I see from the linguists stems from inability to define spiritual sources, and issues with their stats methods.

But i will repeat what I've said before: you cannot do everything in your power to make a testable claim intestable and then draw conclusions from my inability to prove my case. It's hypocritical. I do believe i am entitled to draw conclusions based on your inability to prove your case. In my opinion, proof of your case should be the rule, not the exception. But hey, you can disagree in peace.

And I'm still saying we are getting nowhere with the proof side of this. There is inability to prove either side. And so conclusions from attempts to do so are disingenuous at best, hypocritical and lying at worst with full understanding of it.

You cannot disagree in peace with the existence of free vocalization as an innate human ability. That's just not negotiable. Unlike free mouthvoiceization, free vocalization actually describes something real, true, documentable and repeatable. The phony term you made up describes nothing real. It is not worth debating.

Look I can't even agree in peace with the definition of "free vocalization" as a meaningful term at all. It encompasses SIT (maybe if it ever WAS experienced in a lab), faking, and conversations between a medium and their spirit guide. If this is an innate human ability, it is an innate human ability in the sense of how being stupid is an innate human ability. It means nothing. Just like the term I made up to illustrate that point. I agree it's not worth debating, but for an entirely different reason.

This is getting so flipping tedious.

I have stated my opinion as fact as often as you have. I have never referred to something as proved or documented that was not, and I would just as soon you STOP LYING ABOUT THAT. It's bulls hit, I've called you on it repeatedly. Enough.

Well, Samarin proved nothing, and had tons of opinionated conclusions. That were opinion. So saying he proved something is BS. Or show me the hypothesis test and all the numbers.

[Raf]

And that's why it's pointless to argue with you.

Thanks for playing.

Tell him what he's won, Johnny Gilbert!

[chockfull]

And that's why it's pointless to argue with you.

Thanks for playing.

Tell him what he's won, Johnny Gilbert!

You're right. You are operating on "proof" that is vastly different than what I mean, and what the term means when you introduce the scientific method. You mean "it's an educated guy in the field that presents his opinion". I mean "scientific method".

Here - read up on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Note the terms for hypothesis, null hypothesis, alternative hypothesis. Then, if you can, point out one such statement in Samarin's study. I couldn't find one. But hey, as you state, maybe I'm twisting his work, interpreting it wrong, am completely dishonest, and all the other namecalling words you are so adept at.

All I want is one example where the person who stated a conclusion has it supported by evidence. And evidence meaning here's a sample, here's a hypothesis test, here's the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis, and here are statistical numbers that you can check to verify that they used the scientific method correctly and are not just spouting opinion out of their @$$.

Just one example. That shouldn't be so hard.

Because of a lack of the scientific method in these studies, THEY CAN'T BE VERIFIED, and more importantly, THE HYPOTHESIS CANNOT BE MODIFIED THROUGH ANALYSIS.

This is the normal process of PROVING THINGS. If a hypothesis cannot be modified, because it was never stated in a scientific fashion along with its null and alternative, then another scientist or linguist can't come along and verify or improve on your work. Thus the value of the whole effort involves is NIL.

Edited October 28, 2012 by chockfull

[Raf]

Look, I'm not doing this with you. Appealing to the scientific method as if you're the one adhering to it is a flipping joke, and anyone following along can see it.

[chockfull]

Look, I'm not doing this with you. Appealing to the scientific method as if you're the one adhering to it is a flipping joke, and anyone following along can see it.

Just like I'm sure they can look up easily the hypothesis, null hypothesis, and alternative hypothesis in all of Samarin and Poythress's studies referenced here. And I'm sure they can find a representation of all of these samples Samarin is referring to. Along with the statistical numbers, like mean and standard deviation.

Go ahead everyone reading the thread (or the two that still click on the new post button in spite of their better judgement that are left). Find those terms in the studies. Since my point is such a flipping joke anyone following along can see it.

Look, you are the one with the vocabulary word "proven" spotting up this thread like diarrhea. This should be easy for you. Why the reluctance?

[Raf]

If you seriously think at this stage of the discussion I am going to bend to your sudden demand that we change the terms of the debate and expect me to believe that you will adhere to the new terms, you truly are speaking a language no one on earth can understand. I've seen how you "debate." I don't trust you. I'm not a circus monkey. You have the methodology. You have as much access to the studies as I do. Do your own damn homework.

What I've said has been proven, has been proven.

What I've said has been merely demonstrated, has been demonstrated.

[waysider]

"Just one example. That shouldn't be so hard."

Isn't that we've been saying all along?

[chockfull]

If you seriously think at this stage of the discussion I am going to bend to your sudden demand that we change the terms of the debate and expect me to believe that you will adhere to the new terms, you truly are speaking a language no one on earth can understand. I've seen how you "debate." I don't trust you. I'm not a circus monkey. You have the methodology. You have as much access to the studies as I do. Do your own damn homework.

I did the homework. I couldn't find those terms one time in any of the studies we referenced. I saw no statistics from any research. I saw no numbers, no hypothesis stated in a structured fashion (as the scientific method states to do - null hypothesis, alternative hypothesis). I saw no evidence of the hypothesis changing over different iterations of the experiment like I do with valid scientific studies that actually prove something.

I'm not changing terms of the debate. I'm asking you to supply evidence that your overuse of the word "proven" is warranted in any fashion. You are presenting studies in the thread, and using the word "proven" time after time in conjunction with them. Obviously you feel the studies have "proven" something. So let's see the beef here.

If you can't do this, expressed in many ways including name-calling, logical fallacy appeals, saying "I'm not doing this", saying it's a "waste of time" or whatever other turns you might do logically to escape from your previous attestations, I am going to be forced to conclude that when you use the word "proven" you are completely talking out your @$$ and also by this point in the conversation you know enough about it to be lying about it.